The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Religion

  • Don’t link religion to terrorism, Sultan warns

    Don’t link religion to terrorism, Sultan warns

    The Sultan of Sokoto and President-General, Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar III, has advised Nigerians against giving a religious ‘toga’ to negative happenings in the country.

    The revered monarch spoke at a meeting with religious leaders, security agencies, communities, journalists and NGOs at his palace.

    He blamed the elite for most negative trends, saying their selfishness and uncompromising attitude were the cause of the major problems in the country. “Whenever one loses power, he creates problem, and the masses are always at the receiving end,” he said.

    Abubakar noted that everything had been politicised, and that Muslims feel more marginalised “only that they were not complaining”.

    He lamented that anything negative is always attributed to Muslims, Fulani (herdsmen) and Hausa, though when crimes are committed elsewhere, it is not linked to religion, ethnicity and region.”

    The monarch, however, said Nigeria remains a beautiful country and its people love one another.

    He advised leaders, particularly the elite, to desist from setting innocent people against themselves.

    “Let them bring issues that cause debate but don’t carry weapons against one another. Life lost never comes back; let us sit together, discuss our problems and see how to overcome them,” he said.

    Sultan Abubakar urged the people to stop blaming Fulani for every attack, saying “criminals are found anywhere, in any religion and tribe.

  • Nothing matches religion in arena of seduction

    SIR: Religion is the great balm of existence because it takes us outside ourselves, connects us to something larger. As we contemplate the object of worship (God nature), our burden are lifted away. It is wonderful to feel raised up from the earth, to experience that kind of lightness.

    People are always craving for something to believe in, today, these self-styled men of God in different guise have made themselves seem to resemble the things people want to worship. Religion is the most seductive system that humankind has created. Death is our greatest fear and religion offers us the illusion that we are immortal, that something about us lives on. The idea that we are an infinitesimal part of a vast and indifferent universe is terrifying, religion humanizes the universe, makes us feel important and loved.

    Religion and spirituality are two things that are probably the most difficult to define in definite terms. It would be wrong to say that spirituality and religion do not go hand in hand because they do; the only difference is that while religion is an organized system that pays homage to a god, spirituality is something that does not always need deity to define the parameters of the person’s spiritual conduct. Throughout history there have been people who have played the roles of, both, spiritual and religious leaders for their societies. Some of them have done such exemplary work, with such dedication, that their work and in turn they themselves, were recognized the world over for their steadfast dedication and wisdom in guiding their flock.

    “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary, to one without faith, no explanation is possible.” The above quote from St. Thomas Aquino reveals his time and the balance of faith over fact at the time. The dictionary defines faith as; complete trust or confidence in someone or something, strong belief in the doctrines of religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Against this backdrop, let me deconstruct the negative primordial instinct of people who choose to hurt other people by violence, discrimination and stereotype in the name of religion.

    Religion is belief to be the private affair of everybody as it is hard wired in human mental, social, cultural and spiritual existence. The fact that human beings exist along different identities make tolerance an integral ingredient in peaceful co-existence.

    Hence, the constitution serves as the moral authority from where this mechanism for mutual understanding, tolerance and peaceful co-existence is applied. When some people in the name of whatever identity choose to violate the tenets of the constitution, then they have deliberately undermined the supremacy of it in favour of a divine or religious doctrine culminating in separate body of laws.

    In their concerted mischief to undermine the constitution, they often appeal to religion and religiosity to justify any act of brigandage against others. To them, theocracy supersedes any other form of government; therefore, they must resist the tenets of an alien form of government. They have   blocked their minds and ears to the fact that the realm of religion has long been separated from the realm of state/government.

     

    • Comrade Ogbu A. Ameh,

    Aketekwu Kingdom, Benue State.

  • Feminism: An overrated cause

    Feminism: An overrated cause

  • Uniform of religion

    As could be expected, the June 3 ruling by a High Court in Osogbo, Osun State, in favour of religion-related veil-wearing by female Muslim students in public primary and secondary schools in the state, has resulted in absurdities.

    A background report: “The court, presided by Justice Jide Falola, in a 51-page judgment…held that any act of molestation, harassment, torture and humiliation against female Muslim students using Hijab constitutes a clear infringement on their fundamental rights. Folala cited Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) to rest his ruling.” It continued: “Osun State Muslim Community on Feb. 14, 2013, dragged the State Government to the court. They sought an order of the court to allow female Muslim students to enjoy their fundamental rights by granting them order to use veil in public schools.”

    Following Justice Falola’s decision, a secondary school in Iwo on June 14 became a theatre of comicalities. A report said: “Students of Baptist High School, Iwo, who wore vestments, caused a stir in the school as other students who were in uniform hailed them. Some female Muslim students who also appeared in hijab equally gained access to the school without restriction. Also, some male students donned white robes around 8:30am before other students joined in donning white and purple choir robes…Also, some students dressed in white Celestial Sutana were hailed by their classmates…”

    Considering that things have reached this theatrical stage, it remains to be seen how far the comedy of errors and horrors can go. The errors are based on an erroneous understanding of secularity; the horrors are based on a horrifying picture of what is possible when the question of secularity is not definitively answered.

    In the final analysis, the legal endorsement of hijab in public schools in Osun State further highlighted the reality of ambiguous secularity. In this case, it is unclear why the judge could not distinguish between the uniform of religion and the uniform of secular education, and why he could not appreciate the incongruity of a combination of the two in public schools.

    The students who wore church garments to school in Iwo “were allegedly children of some Christian clerics… in line with the directive of the Osun State chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN)”. The Christian body had protested, and had also called for a protest against the court judgement that endorsed hijab-wearing in public schools during school hours.

    A report quoted the head of the Catholic bloc of CAN in Iwo, Cathechist Paul Olagoke, who said its members were in the school to ensure that no student was chased out. He reportedly said: “We are here to defend the rights of our children. Since female Muslim students are free to wear hijab, our children are also free to wear anything they want, too.”

    The plot thickens. Secularity needs to be clarified, so that clarity can put an end to unclear ideas about the limits and limitations of religion in a secular society pursuing social progress.

    It is clear that the dramatic news pictures of some students who attended school in church garments cannot change the existing court decision validating hijab in public schools in the state. Clearly, the authoritative intervention of the highest structures of justice would be necessary for the needed clarity.

    Ultimately, the path to take is the straight and narrow pathway of the law, particularly because the issue has not been settled by the final court, and the current decision can be still be challenged at higher levels of the justice system. The Christians cannot expect to change the current court judgment by their forms of protest outside the courts, and they should understand that and be guided by that reality.

    Interestingly, the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) responded to the adoption of unhelpful self-help by the Christians. It observed that some Christian students of the Salvation Army Middle School, Iwo, also attended school in church garments, apart from those that did the same thing at Baptist High School. The group advised the protesters in a statement: “If CAN is genuinely interested in protecting Christian interest, they should go on appeal, otherwise no matter their current protest (which will fade away with time like every other protest but only make the current CAN leaders get TV and newspaper popularity), the current judgement will remain the valid law of the land…the law will stand if Osun CAN doesn’t immediately go on appeal.” This is a developing story and Osun CAN should help it to develop further towards a definitive clarification.

    It is said that History repeats itself. It remains to be seen whether the Osun Islamic scarf controversy would follow the course of the Islamic scarf controversy that arose in France in 1989 concerning the wearing of hijab in French public schools. For over a decade, the French controversy cried for clarity until President Jaques Chirac in 2003 “decided that a law should explicitly forbid any visible sign of religious affiliation in public schools, in the spirit of secularism”. A report said: “The law, sometimes referred to as “the veil law” was voted in by the French parliament in March 2004. It forbids the wearing of any “ostentatious” religious articles, including the Islamic veil, the Jewish kippa, and large Christian crosses. The law permits discreet signs of faith, such as small crosses, Stars of David, and hands of Fatima.”

    What followed this important clarification of secularity? The report said: “In 2004, a year after the law was voted in, one organisation opposed to it, called the “Committee of the 15th of March and Liberty,” published a report on the law’s effects. The report cites the files of 806 students affected by the law. Of the 806 students, 533 have accepted the law and no longer wear their veils in class. The report also gives an assessment of students who have left the French school system because of this issue. Among them, 67 have pursued their studies abroad. Another 73 of those 806 suspended or expelled from schools over the veil have chosen to take government-run CNED correspondence courses in order to finish their studies. The number of those who have chosen to study via other, non-government forms of correspondence schools is unknown.” It added: “The opening of the 2005 school year passed largely without incident, and opposition to the law seems to have given way to broader public opinion. However, the actual number of those who no longer attend French junior high and high schools over their veils is unknown.”

    There is no doubt that the French example is clearly secularist, and leaves no grey area that could be manipulated by those without a conceptual understanding necessary for a correct interpretation of the idea of secularity.

    The secularity test in Osun State is useful. Hopefully, it would eventually help to further clarify the concept and practice of secularity for the benefit of the other states of the federation, and for the benefit of the state of the federation.

     

  • ‘Religion and national development twins’

    Religion and national development have been identified as Siamese twins capable of making human life a success.

    A don, Prof. Oloyede Abdulrahmon of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Ibadan, said this in his lecture tagged: “Religion and National Development: Issues and Perspectives.”

    He spoke at a lecture to commemorate the 82nd birthday of Crescent University Founder, Justice Bola Ajibola, which coincided with the institution’s 10th Founder’s Day.

    Oloyede said: “If and when religion runs at cross purposes with development and progress, it must be that the leadership and citizenry have strayed from their paths of rectitude.”

    The don hypothetised that the summary of the concept of leadership enunciated by Islam to drive development was subsumed by the shepherd’s theory of Prophet Muhammad “that every one of you is a shepherd and shall be accountable for his shepherdship”.

    The Parents’ Forum  congratulated Justice Ajibola on the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s journalism award by an alumnus, Adeola Yusuf, who won the 2016 edition of the exclusive Wealth of Nations ( WON) scheme on reporting Illicit Trade in Africa.

  • Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    On the one hand, for the liberalism in liberal democracy, with its undiluted commitment to freedom of thought, conscience and action, takes religious freedom as a fundamental freedom. The freedom of religion in liberal democracy connotes the right and the capability of an individual to practise a religion of his or her choice without fear of persecution or molestation. This freedom is unquestionable and it is not subject to social or political constraint.

    On the other hand, the democracy component of liberal democracy captures the collective character of the political community and its implication for common action and governance. Liberalism can accommodate a loner without any problem though it’s unclear why a loner would need a liberal theory in the first place. Where there is a multitude, however, there’s an assurance of a clash of freedoms and the need for a means of resolving those conflicts. Democracy is the choice of many modern societies, including Nigeria. Thus, liberalism, with its commitment to individual freedoms combines with democracy with its commitment to the sovereignty of the people as the foundation of government.

    The freedom of religion or freedom of conscience which liberalism affirms unequivocally for the individual, like other freedoms, must now have to be reconciled with or accommodated in a whole gamut of freedoms claimed by other individuals in a democracy. It soon becomes clear then that the freedom considered absolute for a loner is anything but in a democratic society where there is a clash of multitudes of individual freedoms at stake.

    Herein lies the dilemma for a progressive committed to the sanctity and advancement of liberal democracy. On the one hand, that commitment requires an unequivocal respect for the individual freedoms recognised by liberalism including freedom of religion. On the other hand, that commitment also requires a pragmatic approach that recognises the destructive nature of absolutist conceptions of freedoms, including freedom of religion in a pluralistic setting. It requires an understanding that there have to be restrictions of freedom of religion.The mark of statesmanship is the ability to navigate the two horns of this cruel dilemma.

    Fortunately, we are not in an uncharted territory. From liberal democratic theorists and constitutional provisions, we have the outlines of a compelling approach to resolving the dilemma.

    Thus, we only need to be reminded of the dictum of the apostle of liberalism with regard to the liberty of thought and action. The only reason why a person can be punished for an action, according to John Stuart Mill, is that it harms other people. From this it is clear that a defence of individual freedom will not fly where a person’s action or speech affects others.

    But if we can punish an individual after the fact that his or her action adversely affects others, we can or at least should act to prevent the performance of that action to the extent that it is possible. Prevention, after all, is always better than cure.It is this preventative approach that constitutional provisions, statutes and policies are designed to pursue in clear statements and enforceable codes.

    Constitutions vary in terms of such provisions with some as ultra-liberals favouring as much liberty as possible and some as ultra conservatives with as much restrictions as possible. The US is an example of the former. Iran is an example of the latter.

    With our multiplicity of religions, our constitution pragmatically steers the middle course between unconstrained freedom and unbridled regulation in the matter of religion. It endorses the secularity of the state with a freedom clause that grants the freedom to choose and practise one’s religion without persecution or molestation and an establishment clause that prohibits the state from adopting a religion.

    Despite the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, however, nations have witnessed varieties of violations including the persecution and harassment of citizens on the basis of religious differences. Indeed, religious conflict has become one the most virulent in our contemporary world.Nigeria has had its disproportionate share of this malady with Maitatsine sect in the 1980s and now Boko Haram, both confined to the North.When the constitution fails to protect, what does a leader do? In particular, what does a progressive government do to prevent religious bigotry and protect its citizens?

    This is presumably the question that Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State was compelled to ask himself. The answer that he came up with in the form of a new legislation to combat the cancer of religious intolerance has been the subject of media interpretation with commentators breaking for or against him. A few in the latter group, including a Christian cleric, has pronounced a death sentence on the governor unless he withdraws the bill. What more evidence does one need for the vitality of religious extremism?

    Incidentally, El-Rufai’s bill is not totally original. It is a rehash of a 1984 bill that sought to serve the same purpose, but which had not received the kind of scrutiny that the new bill has received and had not been effectively enforced over the years.

    A key provision of the bill requires the licensing of preachers in the state. This is to be done by the Inter-Faith Ministerial Committee to be set up by the governor and which is to have a supervisory control over the two Committees of Jama’atu Nasir Islam (JNI) and Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) respectively. These committees are to keep records of churches and mosques as well as the data of preachers in the state. Local Government Area Committees are to keep a register of preachers in their localities and screen their applications for preaching licences with recommendations to the Ministerial Committee. The latter may reject or approve and where it approves, the committees of the major religions are to issue the licences to their respective preachers.

    There is restriction on the playing of cassettes, CDs and other religious recordings (which must not contain any abusive language against persons or religions) to the privacy of individual homes or places of worship. Provision is also made for punishment for infraction of any of the provisions.

    There is little if any doubt with respect to the good intentions of the governor. In any case, it is difficult if not impossible to discern the motive of any individual talk less of a politician. However, one must always give the benefit of the doubt especially in a case such as this when we are confronted at every point of our national life with violent extremism. A leader has an obligation to think clearly and initiate ideas and policies that respond effectively to the challenge. I want to believe that this is what has motivated Governor El-Rufai in the direction of a new or rehashed legislation.

    Is it constitutional? Will it work? Some have argued that the bill violates the constitution because it restricts the freedom of religion that the constitution guarantees. This is not a valid argument because the constitution itself provides for the restriction of the freedom that it grants “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, etc. and for the protection of “the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

    The major worry is whether and how the law will work if and when passed by the legislators and signed by the governor. It is unclear if the two major religions whose leaders are already up in arms against the bill will cooperate in its implementation. But it is equally unclear why these bodies are assigned the role of registrars when they do not represent every Christian or Islamic organisation or sect.

    Assume, however, that the issue of requisite committees is resolved, how are culprits to be apprehended and punished? The bill charges the Local Government Committee with the function of ensuring compliance with the terms of the licence issued. Presumably the same committees are responsible for apprehending violators and prosecuting them. The matter of enforcement will make or mar the bill if and when it becomes law. It is important, therefore, to be as clear as possible on the locus of responsibility for enforcement.

  • ‘Religion and national development twins’

    Religion and national development have been identified as Siamese twins capable of making human life a success.

    A don, Prof. Oloyede Abdulrahmon of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Ibadan, said this in his lecture tagged: “Religion and National Development: Issues and Perspectives.”

    He spoke at a lecture to commemorate the 82nd birthday of Crescent University Proprietor, Judge Bola Ajibola, which coincided with the institution’s 10th Founder’s Day.

    Oloyede said: “If and when religion runs at cross purposes with development and progress, it must be that the leadership and citizenry have strayed from their paths of rectitude.”

    The don hypothetised that the summary of the concept of leadership enunciated by Islam to drive development was subsumed by the shepherd’s theory of Prophet Muhammad “that every one of you is a shepherd and shall be accountable for his shepherdship”.

    The Parents’ Forum has congratulated Justice Ajibola on the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s journalism award by an alumnus, Adeola Yusuf, who won the 2016 edition of the exclusive Wealth of Nations ( WON) scheme on reporting Illicit Trade in Africa.

  • Nigeria’s joining Islamic coalition not religious, says Minister

    The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama on Monday said that Nigeria’s membership of the Islamic coalition against terror under the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with giving Nigeria an Islamic identity.

    He was reacting to reports which emerged at the weekend following a broadcast of an interview granted by President Muhammadu Buhari to Aljazeera where he disclosed that Nigeria has signed up to the coalition.

    The Minister blamed the media for not being “responsible” enough in the presentation of their reports.

    Rather than dwelling on the religious perspective, the Minister said that the media ought to be more interested in the objectives of the coalition.

    Speaking with State House correspondents after a meeting with Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, Onyeama observed that terrorism was a global phenomenon and Nigeria was ready to support any move to deal with it.

    According to him, the Islamic countries were uncomfortable with the perception that terrorism was Islamic and consequently wanted to show that it was not the case.

    He noted that the coalition was interested in demonstrating that terrorists were not speaking for Islam and there was nothing in Islam teaching that encourages terrorism.

    On the reservation expressed by some Nigerians on Nigeria’s membership of the Islamic coalition, he said: “What I say first of all is that you guys in the media have to be more responsible in the way you present news. First and foremost, get your facts right.

    “It has nothing to do with religion as far as Nigeria is concerned. We have to look at what the objective is. We face terror challenges and it’s a global phenomenon.

    “Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that some of the terrorists groups are claiming some of the things they are doing is in the name of a particular religion and it is clear to everybody that this is not the case which is obviously a concern to people of Islamic faith and Islamic countries that their religion should be so abused.

    “So, there is naturally a tendency to show that this has nothing to do with Islam. Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Islamic countries, Islamic people want to be seen as being in the forefront of the battle against these terrorists to show also that it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

    “That’s what this is all about. So, we are supporting every move to achieve this, to disabuse people’s minds that some of these terrorists are speaking in the name of Islam or are Islamic or that there’s anything about Islamic teaching that somehow condones these barbaric actions.

    “I think it’s something we should all get together and we should all support whoever is working towards it. And that’s what this coalition is for, to show too that we are a Muslim country, we are Muslims and these people do not speak for Islam, have nothing to do with Islam.

    “Most of the victims of these people are Muslims if you look at it. So, that’s what it is.

    “It has nothing to do with Nigeria, Christianity, Islam. I think the media should really get the main message across”, he added

  • Ese: don’t mix criminality with religion, say Soyinka, Falana

    Ese: don’t mix criminality with religion, say Soyinka, Falana

    Nobel laureate Prof Wole Soyinka and activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) yesterday condemned the Federal Government’s failure to prosecute Senator Ahmed Yerima who allegedly married an Egyptian girl of 13.

    Soyinka said failure to punish such acts embolden others to engage in them.

    He also faulted attempts to justify Ese Oruru’s abduction and conversion to Islam.

    At a joint briefing in Lagos, Soyinka and Falana said Ese’s abduction was an act of criminality that must not go unpunished.

    Soyinka disagreed with a professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), Ishaq Akintola, who claimed that Islam has no age barrier in marriage.

    “I want to ask him (Akintola), who invoked religion in the first place? What everybody was screaming was that this was a crime, a criminal act. Who brought religion into a purely criminal act? People should be very careful when they speak. They should take care not to worsen an already inexcusable situation by dragging religion into it,” Soyinka said.

    According to the Nobel laureate, specialists in human physiology had declared that at a certain age, a girl-child is not fit for sexual intercourse with “a grizzled, horny adult”.

    “So, who exactly brings religion into issues of governance, of constitution, of law? We’re saying that there’s something higher than the protocols of any religion, and has to be higher simply because those who inhabit this border called Nigeria belong to more than one religion.

    “There has to be a commonality which directs our conduct, which organises our lives. As inadequate as it is, it is the Constitution.

    “For me – I don’t know about you – the welfare of a child is even more important than money that is stolen. You can always retrieve the money, but when you damage a child with a fistula, which ruins a child for life, if you believe in God, you’re committing a crime against God.

    “If you steal money, you commit crime against the circular society, but when you damage a child because of your own depravity, you ruin that child for life, you traumatise that child, so don’t come and tell me that you’re religious and pious.”

    Soyinka noted that during the Yerima child-marriage saga, scholars highlighted tenets from the Quran which proved Yerima wrong.

    “A governor, now senator, boasts that he has a right to marry and consummated a marriage with a 13-year-old, when it’s proven that he actually paid the father who was a driver in Egypt, and we screamed at the time that this was a crime, not only in Nigeria but in a Moslem country – Egypt; that this was cross-border sex trafficking, in addition to flouting the laws of this nation and Egypt.

    “He took the girl from school and then announces his right to consummate the marriage – that his religion permitted him to do so,” Soyinka said.

    According to him, acts of impunity inevitably lead to problems such as Boko Haram.

    “When you invoke religion, there are others who will say: ‘O, you say you are pious, but I am holier than you, therefore I can interpret that same source the way I want to authorise me to kill you, your wife, your brothers, your family; because I say you’re not holy enough and I can prove it.’ That is what happens when we allow people to get away with impunity based on religion.

    “So, let’s take religion out of this. We’re talking about pure criminality and it is my demand, and will always remain my demand, that until you make an example of people like Yerima, there will be thousands of Yunusa, the man who abducted Ese,” Soyinka said.

    Soyinka said demanding justice for Ese does not mean being against Islam.

    “I sympathise with his (Akintola’s) feeling that his religion is under siege. But he should look for other reasons. He shouldn’t try and suggest that people hate Islam. Don’t say that people are Islamophobic. That’s rubbish.

    “We’re against crimes, defined by the Constitution, the legal structure that bind us all together, and we say leave religion out of it. Any religious practice involves a continuous debate. But when we’re talking about crime please don’t diffuse the subject. When we say Yerima should be prosecuted, don’t diffuse it,” Soyinka said.

    He also faulted the idea that it is culturally acceptable to marry under-age girls. According to him, culture changes.

    “Culture is not static. It’s dynamic. It constantly evolves. There are hard-core materials in any culture, but culture itself, especially the practice, in view of greater knowledge, discoveries, even as a result of learning from other cultures, we adopt what we have always considered sacrosanct, because at the bottom of it all, at the heart of it all, culture is about human beings, about humanity.

    “There’s no culture without humanity. It’s human beings who create culture and who are guided by it and who adapt them.

    “So, when I read anything which suggests that a culture is sacrosanct, I just wonder on what planet they are living, because history contradicts this absolutely.”

    Falana said under Section 38 (2) of the 1999 Constitution, no child of school age should be forced to convert to another religion other than his parents’.

    The section says: “No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if such instruction ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own, or religion not approved by his parent or guardian.”

    Falana said Ese was attending a school in Bayelsa State when Yunusa allegedly abducted her to Kano State and forcefully converted her to Islam without her parents’ approval.

    “That is a violation of Section 38 of the Constitution,” Falana said.

    Falana noted that Yunusa’s father had spoken out that he warned his son not to bring Ese to Kano, adding that when the Emir learned of it, he directed security agencies to intervene.

    “There is a United Nations convention for the rights of the child. Nigeria as a UN member ratified the convention and domesticated the law in 2003. Since 2003, we have had the Child’s Right Act. Under Section 15 of the Act, every child in Nigeria shall be educated at the expense of the state from primary to junior secondary school.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, in 2004, we also enacted the Compulsory Universal Basic Education Act that has also imposed a duty on the state to ensure that every child is educated from primary to junior secondary school.

    “In fact, under that law, it is a criminal offence not to allow your child to be educated. What Yunusa has done by taking that girl from her school in Yenegoa is a violation of that law.

    “About 24 states have adopted the Child’s Right Act, and under the law, which is applicable in Bayelsa State, what Yunusa did is purely criminal – kidnapping, forced marriage, rape, sexual assault on a girl who was 13 last year. Now she has been put in a family way. You can imagine the danger to the health of that girl.

    “That is why all Nigerians must rise to retrieve all under-age children that have been forced into illegal marriages. We need a national movement against child marriage in our country,” Falana said.

  • Government, religion and politics

    In  an interview on Channels TV  this week a Nigerian Islamic cleric brilliantly distinguished between secularism  and secularity and sided with the latter  to establish his   acceptability  in the interest  of a multi – religious society. On  the same plain the beleaguered  but  leading US  Republican Presidential candidate Donald  Trump told a  campaign  audience that his Muslim ban to the US  call  was  not a religious  matter but a security issue. Meanwhile in Nigeria Shiite Muslims almost killed the army chief in Zaria on his way to an official engagement just as Iran and  Iraq  issued a peremptory  warning  to  Nigeria on the welfare of the Nigerian leader of the Shiite Islamic sect and  Iran  summoned  our envoy in Teheran,  the capital of Iran, for an explanation   on the  Zaria  incident.

    Let  me state clearly that there is nothing sacred or sacrosant  about  today’s topic and the incidents I have highlighted. I intend  therefore   to be quite frank about them as they touch on the very important issues of liberty and security which really  are  the twin bedrock  of any democracy,  including our own Nigeria .Liberty is about human rights and dignity but it is not limitless and any student of political science is taught at the beginning in the University  that – your rights end where my nose begins. Similarly democracy  thrives in a peaceful and stable environment of security of life and property and that was what compelled Mao to state historically and categorically that a revolution is not a tea party and that real  power flows  from the barrel of a gun. Democracy  therefore  is about choice of leadership  and guidance from the ritual  of elections with  the guarantee  that inherent   in that choice is the capability  and ability  to  maintain law  and order  as  well  as  the safety  of the life and property  of the electorate. It  is difficult not to remember Rousseau’s  social  contract  and its  Hobbes’ law of  might  is  right where  there is a breakdown of law and order as  in an anarchy and the social contract  breaks down.  It  follows  therefore that a government must enforce its rule to keep law and order at all times or else expect the distrust of its citizenry leading to the disavowal of  the social contract  and the descent into anarchy and the  emergence of Hobbes law  in  society. Today’s  topic and  its treatment intend  an insight into   how   the global society is sinking into anarchy and   why  it seems,  nobody is bothered about that.

    Let us go  back to the Nigerian Muslim Cleric on Channels TV whose  name I could not recall but  who stole  my heart with his candor and wisdom.  He  said he did not accept secularism because it denied religion its place whereas secularity acknowledged religion and  its  practice . I  think   the best  example   of that is Turkey  whose  founder  Kemal  Ataturk  insisted at  the outset   that  Turkey   must  be secular  even though it  remained   a Muslim  state  and  the army  guaranteed  its secularity   from  the 1920s,  until   the present  Erdogan regime  where an Islamic Party  has won four  consecutive elections  and   booted aside the military guarantee  of   Turkey’s  secularity in that nation’s  formidable  democratic  march,   with the  goal of  EU   membership   as  its major driving force.

    When asked about the knotty question of the difference between Shia Islam  and  the majority  Sunni  Islam,  he attempted an answer then asked to be allowed  to keep the difference as a personal matter.  When  told that Islam is a religion  of peace, he  ignored that homily but   then went on to say that in spite of any or all differences,  human beings  should endeavor  to keep  the peace at all  times  and in all places. Which  really  is the crux  of the matter today  and  that leads us to the Donald  Trump categorization of his Muslim  ban call as a security  matter rather than a religious issue.

    Sadly enough the recent  killing of 14  innocent   people in San  Bernardino California was the largest killing of US citizens on American home  soil after 9/11.  It  came after US President Barak  Obama  assured US citizens  of their safety in a special  address before they went on their Thanksgiving holidays.  Obviously  the terrorists in California were  trying to dent the assurance   of security the US president was giving to US citizens on their home soil and they tragically  succeeded and that is Donald Trump’s trump  card in saying that the issue is one of security rather than religion. More  so  as   the terrorist plot  now  unveiled  included a master mind now charged for a failed earlier plot which  was not totally Muslim in conception and execution. It was all American involving the viewing of Muslim sermons, videos and  lessons on bomb  making in private homes and  observers  have noticed that it threw a huge question mark on American valuation  of their liberty  and  security at  the same time.  So  what Donald  Trump  said was not utter  nonsense but a recall to a rethink about how Americans practice  their various religions without jeopardizing  the security and liberty  of fellow Americans which  really was  also  what the Shiite  Muslim attack on our army chief  in  Zaria  was  all about.

    Let  me start on the  Zaria  Shiite  ambush  of the Army  Chief envoy by recalling what  I wrote  some time that the army must protect its leadership after Boko  Haram attacked the same army chief’s village, killed people, sorted women from damsels  and  made away with the maidens. Boko  Haram was attempting what the terrorists did with the Obama assurance of security to  Americans at  Thanksgiving    time  by staging a successful terrorist act about the time of the security guarantee. Boko  Haram has attempted twice to decapitate our army by killing its head. The army and  the Nigerian nation  must never allow that to happen in the interest  of the sovereignty of  Nigeria and the social  contract between the Nigerian electorate and its duly elected and new government.  That  is what the Shiite Muslims in Nigeria must  be made to understand if they are not to be seen as trying to finish the gory work  begun by the Boko  Haram in attempting twice  now to behead  our army by killing its boss and scoring a major psychological war against our nation and its people.

    Nigerian Shiite  Muslims must  be told clearly that Nigeria is not  a Muslim state  but a secular one. It is a democracy  and  not a Theocracy  like Iran nor a  failed state like Iraq  whose  democracy is  American made  and  guaranteed, and was created   just after 9/11 in 2001. These two nations have nothing to teach Nigeria about democracy, rule  of law,  and law and order- so their  warnings to Nigeria on the Zaria ambush of our army chief convoy  was quite impertinent and meant to bring our democracy down to their own abysmal levels and that we should never allow.

    Undoubtedly  the Nigerian Shiite  Muslims are a minority amongst Nigerian Muslims so one wonders why they should think it is their lot to bring the Nigerian nation to its knees by killing its army chief when the nation is preoccupied with stopping the insurgency of Boko Haram. I am even astonished at the army’s response in talking of the rules of engagements   when it was not fighting a war or facing Boko  Haram as usual but a mob out to kill its leader in broad  daylight. The army  must  not be cowed into losing its power of deterrence against the enemies  of the Nigerian  state both within and without.  It  must  not be deterred from using superior  violence against those who threaten its  capability to defend the Nigerian  state by orchestrating demonstrations in London simultaneously as Shiite  Muslims waylay our army chief  and distribute pictures  on religious  rights at the same time. It  is the duty of the Nigerian  army to defend the Nigerian people against all enemies of the state within and without. It  is as simple as that. Once again long live the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.