Northern Nigeria and the Undying Quest for Justice: By M K ILYASU
Northern Nigeria and the Undying Quest for Justice:
By M K ILYASU
What good is a vision when you see the only one you care for is wasting away!
I start with Mallam Gambo Hamza’s opening remark in his treatise on Northern Nigeria. It says:
“The North today stands at a crossroads , battered by insecurity, strangled by poverty, weighed down by poor governance, and divided by clannish politics.”1
Introduction.
In her quest for justice, stability and peace, the thought for and adoption of Shari’a as a state judicial instrument in most of the Northern states of Nigeria has led to series of discussions between both the Muslim and non-Muslim about the role of Islamic law today and the efficacy of its ability in providing a just and stable society.
The question often pondered is whether Islamic law can be valid on our contemporary societies and, if so, what are the mechanism and methods that can be used in such process.2
Understanding Shari’a.
To understand Islamic law, we need to look into factors that contribute to its creation and continuity.
Islamic law needs not only a state wherein it may be applied, but also the appropriate scholars to synthesise it. Without either of the two, the law could have no authority and would comprise only a set of instructions that the people could neither understand nor apply.
At present time most of the Northern states claim to be Shari’a compliant.
Why should Islamic law have such attraction to our communities who invariably were subjected to laws that were neither wholly Islamic nor canon but customary in nature.
As part of its concerns, the Northern thinking that led to Zamfara declaration was that the peace of suppression is no peace at all, and that true stability can only be built on Shari’a law that would serve as the bedrock of transparency, justice, and accountability.3
There is no doubt that many criticisms were directed against such claims, believing that the establishment of Shari’a as state legal instrument could be its undoing.
Skeptics and Critiques alike became worried just like those who gave their support because of the fear of what it may portend to serve could as well be, its albatross. That
something as immaterial that interferes with or delays progress in a secular societies where all other laws remain subservient to its constitution could become a catalyst to insecurities.4
Historical anecdotes
Going back to some historical accounts, the adoption of Shari’a law has always been fraught with problems, especially from people’s perceptions and interpretations. 5.
Our colonists came with the ideals of democracy, pluralism, tolerance, human rights and secularism, which were not simply beautiful but were dictated by the needs of modern state.6.
As these modern states required colonization to expand, that meant the colonization of our agrarian societies for raw materials and the exportation of their goods. The ideals of democracy, tolerance and human rights were valid within the state, but seemed to be totally void concepts when Western states had to subsume their colonized countries in order to survive.7
This whole process was experienced by our agrarian colonies as invasive, disturbing and alien. It was almost impossible to achieve modernization due to the rapidity with which it was being applied, 8. The problem was not only that, but also that the colonized had to adhere to someone else’s program of what has become the meaning of modernization.
Undoubtedly, this led to massive cultural problems in our societies where industrialization was being developed. A new culture was being imposed with modern fast machines driven by the same individuals who had driven cows, horses and donkeys only years before, 9. The result was a cultural rupture/shock that initially created a rejection of the traditional values, but ultimately came the realization that the only way forward was the rejection of the colonizing alien culture. This rejection was translated by reverting to Islam, particularly to the rule laid by Shari’a.10
Appeal to Law
The application of law primarily requires the understanding of the law through interpretation and then its application to various social and religious cases. This leads to a legal vacuum whereby certain parts of the law are not applicable or are incorrectly interpreted by individuals to justify what they want to do. 11. We have first witnessed this in the case of Amina Vs Zamfara state, as the state Hizbah could not enforce the application of Qur’anic injunction for crimes that requires “Hudud”.
Politically, although no one is certain as to the legal system other states in the Federation were going to adopt at the inception of Shari’a law in October 1999, there is no doubt that organic form of Shari’a was being considered, until the Sharia Penal Code subsequently came into force on January 27, 2000, marking the formal start of the full Sharia legal system, including criminal law, in the state.
Emergence of Banditry
Organic Islam is a form of Islam that is easy and convenient to apply since all that it requires is an individual’s or small group’s understanding of Islam,12. Islamic extremism has found this as a way of invading societies,13. This is where the problem of insecurity began as justice became selective.
Unfortunately, one sadly witnessed a mutant form of organic Islamic law in Sharia compliant states including Zamfara which justifies all forms of illegitimate actions against democracy, human rights and tolerance.
The inherent danger we witnessed with groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP is the interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith desiring Allah’s approval to commit “error”. 14. We witnessed videos posted by BH fighters gleefully celebrating acts of depraved violence, humiliating and taunting victims before gunning them down en
masse.
They are those who purchased “terror” for guidance. The interpretation led to the creation of fanaticism, who in turn interpreted Islam with further extremism that gave birth to ANSAR and lately LAKURAWA.
The extreme fanaticism of BH, ISWAP, ANSAR and LAKURAWA including Banditry justifies the murder of women, children. Lack of military and political unity as well as ignorance is also attributed to their heinous crimes.
It can safely be said that this mutant organic form of Shari’a that created radical and dangerous attitudes such as that of Marwa MaiTatsine and the growth of similar forms of movement like the Boko Haram have proved to be more aggressive and violent. The emergence of such extreme movements, in my opinion, is the raison d’etre why some states Governors come to believe that Banditry can not be stopped by means of “Force”, giving the Bandits and their sympathizers the assurance of state incapacity to go to war with them.
Legality and Order
Marilyn Izzi Dien asked a very interesting question in his book “Islamic Law”, (From Historical Foundations to Contemporary Practice)15, as to what would be the response if the prevalent legal system which maintains that the thief should be punished not according to Islamic law but by the principle of some other law? Can Islamic law accept such a ruling whereby authority does not lie with it?
No doubt such a subservient legal position is not the ideal position under which Islamic law would like to operate.
On practical level therefore, there is the need of serious reconsideration of the Sunni Islamic Law appropriate for our society, particularly as it lacks a consistent and unanimous source of authority that can be accepted by all Muslims generally. This is very evident from the writings of the 4 Islamic legal minds, as in Malik, Shafi’i, Hambal and Hanafi.
The theoretical debates on issues such as public interest and legal necessity is what must be urgently considered.
It must be noted that despite many states claiming to be Sharia compliant, the strongest value of the law remains in the individual’s commitment to it. It was the human tendency towards religion that kept pushing for the organic form of Islamic law to remain alive.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
One does not necessarily distinguish an unbeliever from a believer. This idea may be understood on the ground that a believing Murderer accepts the existence of the Divine wrath , but for some reason he has resorted to murder.
The crucial difference between the believing murderer and the non believing murderer can be discerned when any illegitimate action is considered permissible, a perception that would take the murderer into the realm of an unbeliever.
Please reflect on what Theodore Roosevelt once said, and I quote:
“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, and the worst thing is nothing, in between is wrong “.
Mallam Mohammed Kabir Ilyasu, a public affairs commentator, writes from Kaduna Nigeria. 3rd November, 2025.
