Religious and Customary Laws in Nigeria

This Essay discusses the \u27religious law\u27 and \u27customary law\u27 paradigms in the context of the Nigerian legal system. It also examines the pluralistic nature of Nigeria in terms of ethnicity, religion, and law, and argues that the religious law paradigm is problematic for the discussion of laws at the global level generally and within the Nigerian legal system in particular. Then this Essay identifies customary law, Islamic law, and English law (common law) as the three legal traditions in Nigeria, and then proceeds to discuss their status and scope, the conflicts between them, and the particular challenges facing the Islamic and customary laws in Nigeria. This Essay concludes with suggestions for the way forward

Religious and Customary Laws in Nigeria

This Essay discusses the \u27religious law\u27 and \u27customary law\u27 paradigms in the context of the Nigerian legal system. It also examines the pluralistic nature of Nigeria in terms of ethnicity, religion, and law, and argues that the religious law paradigm is problematic for the discussion of laws at the global level generally and within the Nigerian legal system in particular. Then this Essay identifies customary law, Islamic law, and English law (common law) as the three legal traditions in Nigeria, and then proceeds to discuss their status and scope, the conflicts between them, and the particular challenges facing the Islamic and customary laws in Nigeria. This Essay concludes with suggestions for the way forward

Challenges in the Judicial Administration of Muslim Estates in the Sharia Courts of Appeal in Nigeria

The Nigerian legal system is pluralistic with common law, Islamic law and customary law as the major legal traditions/cultures in the country. However, the judicial structures for administration of Islamic law and customary law are largely ad hoc and haphazard. The Sharia Courts of Appeal are pivotal in the administration of Islamic personal law which includes matters relating to inheritance (mirāth) and wills (wasiyyah). Although these courts are superior courts of record created by the Constitution, they do not have a clearly spelt-out legal framework for the administration of estates. This poses legal challenges that include unresolved questions concerning the status of the estate distribution panels constituted by the Sharia Courts of Appeal, ambivalence in the membership of the panels, and limitations of the panels in dealing with substantive legal issues. Other challenges include jurisdictional competition from the area/sharia courts and the legal implications of litigation on an estate distributed by the panel coming on appeal before the same Kadis. The paper recommends that the Grand Kadis of the Sharia Courts of Appeal invoke their statutory and constitutional powers to make the appropriate court rules for the administration of estates in their courts

A comparative survey of the status and application of Islamic Law in the legal system of Malaysia and Nigeria

The experiences of Malaysia and Northern Nigeria of British colonialism and its impact of Islamic law are parallel in many respects. Before the advent of British colonization, Islamic Law was the Lex loci (Law of the Land) of the Malay States (that later became Malaysia) and that of the Sokoto and Kanem-Bornu Caliphates in what became Northern Nigeria. The Shariah Courts and local laws based on Shariah had been in existence in the Malaccan Sultanate and the northern Nigeria since in the fifteenth century respectively. In both the Malay states and northern Nigeria, attempts were made to modify local customs to conform to Islam and to adopt Islamic law; the process can be seen in the various versions of the Malacca [code] and in the Islamic reform movements (jihad) in northern Nigeria. Although the treaties between the British and the Malay rulers and between the British and Emirs in Northern Nigeria respectively required the British to refrain from any intervention in matters of custom and Islamic law, the British did not fully honour these promises. With the advent of British colonialism began a gradual reduction of the influence of Islamic law and the expansion of the British common law and statutes that eventually constituted the State law in the colonial era and even in the post colonial period in both countries. The reduction of the jurisdiction of Islamic law went together the gradual control of the administration of Islamic law by common law courts. British common law judges were often called upon to administer Islamic law as a matter of personal law and did so rather willingly. The colonial common law courts gave themselves the power to admit or refuse evidence of Islamic law and local customs when adjudicating cases involving such matters. In during the colonial period, Muslims in Malaysia and Nigeria resisted the adverse changes that the British authorities made to Islamic law and its administration but in many instances, the British eventually had their way. The era of independence witnessed in both countries strong attempts to purge Islamic law and its administration of these negative changes. However, there are many constraints arising from the racial/ethnic pluralism, the multi-religious nature of these countries, and the demands modern nationhood. The paper seeks to trace the development of Islamic Law in Nigeria and Malaysia since their independence. It also attempts to compare the status and application of Islamic Law in both countries

The legal status of religion and the administration of Islam in Nigeria and Malaysia

This paper examines the legal status of religion and the administration of Islam in against the background of the administration of Islamic affairs in Malaysia and Nigeria. Both countries experienced British colonialism. Both countries are Muslim-majority states with substantial non-Muslim populations. Both are based on the concept of modern Muslim states rather than Islamic conception of states. However, there are differences in the legal status of Islam and the administration of affairs of Islam in both countries. In Malaysia, the constitution declares that Islam is the official religion. However this does not mean that Islam is the supreme law of the land or the source of all laws in the country. Rather, the constitutional status of Islam provides the basis for state intervention in, and assistance to, the affairs of Islam. Thus, in Malaysia, there are state institutions charged with administration of various aspects of Islam. In the states where there is a Ruler, the Ruler is also the Head of the religion of Islam in that state. Islamic matters are within the jurisdiction of the state and there are variations in the administration of Islamic affairs across the states in the federation. However, in recent times there have been some successes in the harmonization effort. In Nigeria, there is no official religion. The constitution recognizes religions but the state does not interfere in their administrations. The affairs of Islam in Nigeria are administrated by private bodies outside statutory. The decisions of these bodies do not have the force of law. However, there are Islamic courts administering Islamic law as personal law to all Muslims, and aspects of Islamic muamalat as laws binding between Muslims who so wish. In some states in northern Nigeria, civil courts administer the Shariah Penal Codes as the criminal law binding on Muslims in those states

Legal and constitutional status of race-based and religious-based political parties in Malaysia and Nigeria

Malaysia and Nigeria are multi-religious, multi-ethnic, Muslim-majority democratic countries. The Malaysian system is based on the parliamentary system while Nigeria operates the presidential system. Both countries are federations where elected official run the federal and state governments respectively. Both countries are multi-party states where political parties of various ideological persuasions compete for power. The central question is to what extent does the law allows the existence of racial and religious-based political parties in both countries? This paper explores this theme based on analyses of the constitutions, statutes and case law applicable in the two countries. The study found that the legal status of religion in the state and the status of religion in the electoral process in both countries differ. In Malaysia, Islam is the state religion although the country is a modern nation state and not an Islamic state ran along strict Islamic lines. In Malaysia, electoral laws are silent on the role of religion therefore it is possible to form political parties which are aligned with religious ideologies. The attitude in Malaysia is based on the recognition of the important role religion plays in the identity and aspirations of its peoples. In Nigeria, the constitution disallows the state from having a state religion and prohibits political parties from having ethnic or religious affiliations. The study found further that the different approaches in both countries have their advantages and disadvantages, and that they represent competing approaches to national unity and national integration