Let me be clear from the outset: this is my personal opinion as a critic observing Nigeria’s religious and constitutional structure. I am not neutral on this subject. I believe the analogy between the Sultan of Sokoto’s institutional position and the Ayatollah-style model seen in the Islamic Republic of Iran is not exaggerated. It is structurally instructive. And until Nigerians confront this honestly, the deeper roots of our national instability will remain untouched.
This is not an attack on individual Muslims. It is not a rejection of freedom of religion. It is an examination of power — constitutional power, institutional power, symbolic power — and how religion intersects with it in Nigeria.
Islam as a Governing Framework, Not Just a Faith
Islam, historically and doctrinally, is not structured solely as a private spiritual path. Classical Islamic jurisprudence developed as a comprehensive legal system covering criminal law, governance, economics, warfare, inheritance, and public morality. In several modern states, religion and political authority remain intertwined.
In Saudi Arabia, Islamic law shapes the entire criminal justice system. In Iran, the Supreme Leader — an Ayatollah — sits above elected officials, exercising ultimate religious and political oversight.
My argument is this: when religion is structurally embedded into state law, it moves from persuasion to enforcement. It becomes a governing ideology.
Nigeria may not officially declare Islam as a state religion, but our constitutional framework tells a more complicated story.
Sharia in the Nigerian Constitution: A Structural Imbalance
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution prohibits the adoption of a state religion under Section 10. Yet the same Constitution provides explicit recognition for Sharia Courts of Appeal at the state level.
After 1999, states such as Zamfara State, Kano State, and Sokoto State expanded Sharia beyond personal law into criminal jurisdiction.
Supporters say this is federalism in action — that Muslims who choose Sharia courts are simply exercising religious freedom. But the issue is deeper than personal choice.
When Sharia is constitutionally entrenched, it ceases to be merely a voluntary religious code. It becomes part of the state’s legal architecture. No other religious legal system in Nigeria enjoys the same constitutional codification. That is not neutrality. That is structural accommodation of one faith’s jurisprudence over others.
Once religion is in the Constitution, it is no longer private belief — it is institutional authority.
The Sultan of Sokoto: Religious Authority with National Reach
Now we come to the most sensitive but unavoidable issue.
Sa'ad Abubakar is not just a traditional ruler of Sokoto. He is widely recognized as the spiritual leader of Nigerian Muslims. He is President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). He plays a coordinating role among traditional rulers nationwide.
Historically, this authority traces back to Usman dan Fodio and the Sokoto Caliphate — a theocratic empire that fused religion and governance in the 19th century.
Here is where my Ayatollah analogy stands firm.
In Iran, the Supreme Leader is not elected by universal suffrage. His legitimacy flows from religious authority and constitutional structure. In Nigeria, the Sultan is not elected by Nigerians at large, yet he occupies a permanent, elevated position in both Islamic affairs and traditional leadership structures.
He is not formally a head of state. But structurally, his influence over Islamic institutions nationwide and his permanent leadership role within traditional councils give him a hierarchy that no other religious leader in Nigeria possesses.
That is not symbolic. That is systemic.
Permanent Chairmanship and the Question of Democratic Balance
Why is the leadership of Nigeria’s traditional rulers not rotational?
Why should one throne — tied to a historic caliphate — maintain permanent chairmanship of an umbrella body representing diverse ethnic monarchies, including Yoruba obas, Igbo traditional leaders, and minority rulers?
In a democratic federation, no position of national coordination should be permanently fixed by historical religious prestige.
Leadership should rotate. Chairmanship should be elective. Authority should be accountable.
A permanent structure signals hierarchy. Hierarchy signals dominance. Dominance breeds resentment.
And resentment, in a fragile federation like Nigeria, feeds instability.
Insecurity and Ideological Fuel
Nigeria’s security crisis is complex. But let us not pretend ideology is irrelevant.
Boko Haram did not emerge from economic frustration alone. It emerged with a theological argument — one that calls for stricter Islamic governance.
Whether mainstream Muslim leaders condemn them or not, extremist groups invoke Islam explicitly as their banner. They justify violence through religious rhetoric.
This is uncomfortable to say, but it must be said: when a religion is structurally embedded in governance, extremists can point to that structure as validation of their broader ambitions.
The existence of constitutional Sharia courts, combined with centralized Islamic authority, creates a reference framework — even if unintentionally.
To deny that religion plays a role in fueling insecurity is to ignore the language used by the perpetrators themselves.
The Ayatollah Comparison: Why I Stand by It
Let me restate my position clearly:
Nigeria is not officially Iran. The Sultan is not constitutionally a Supreme Leader.
But structurally, the concentration of religious authority, constitutional recognition of religious law, and permanent national traditional leadership form a hierarchy that resembles a soft theocratic framework.
It is latent, not explicit. It is structural, not declared. But it exists.
And in politics, structures matter more than intentions.
Even if the Sultan personally advocates peace — which he often does publicly — the architecture itself is what concerns me. Systems outlive individuals.
Constitutional Reform Is the Real Battlefield
If southern Nigerians or any group truly object to the Sultan’s authority or Sharia’s constitutional presence, social media debates will not fix it.
The Constitution must be amended. The leadership of traditional rulers must be democratized. Chairmanship must rotate. Religious courts must be clearly limited in scope.
Until then, criticism of individual personalities misses the core issue: the system empowers the structure.
A Dangerous Silence
Nigeria cannot afford to ignore structural imbalances disguised as cultural heritage.
We are a plural nation — Christian, Muslim, traditionalist, secular, and everything in between. No religious hierarchy should sit above national institutional equilibrium.
If we continue to pretend that the fusion of religion and constitutional authority carries no long-term consequences, we may find ourselves confronting crises far deeper than what we see today.
This is not about hatred. This is about power. This is about structure. This is about Nigeria’s future.
And as a critic, I stand by the Ayatollah analogy — not as an insult, but as a warning about the direction unchecked religious institutional dominance can take in a fragile democracy.
Nigeria must decide: Are we a secular republic with religious freedom, or a republic with a silent theocratic hierarchy embedded within it?
That question cannot be avoided forever.
0 Comments