State governments have voiced strong opposition to a bill in the House of Representatives seeking to remove the constitutional immunity shielding governors, deputy governors, and the vice president from prosecution for crimes.

The bill, which has passed its second reading, aims to amend Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, retaining immunity for the President, while stripping it from other top executive officeholders.

On Wednesday at plenary, the House presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, passed the bill through a second reading.

The passage paved the way for its transmission to the House Committee on Constitutional Review for further legislative action.

The proponents of the bill, including its sponsor, Solomon Bob, argued that removing immunity would strengthen the fight against corruption and enhance accountability.

However, state officials and legal experts warned that such a move could lead to politically motivated lawsuits, distractions from governance, and instability in state administrations.

The immunity clause enshrined in Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution protects the President, governors, and their deputies from legal proceedings while in office.

The provision has been in place to prevent distractions and ensure that elected leaders focus on governance without the threat of litigation.

However, the proposed amendment seeks to retain immunity only for the president, while allowing vice presidents, governors, and deputy governors to face prosecution for alleged misconduct while still in office.

Oyo State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Abiodun Aikomo, said scrapping of immunity by the National Assembly would affect developmental projects across the states.

In an interview with The TheNigerian in Ibadan, the state capital, Aikomo explained that scrapping immunity would distract the executive arm of government from its functions.

He said, “The concern was that if these officials were held criminally responsible for actions taken while in office, they would be distracted from performing their duties.

“That’s why the constitution has given them immunity from prosecution.”

He added, “In law-making, even when you go to court and the court is going to interpret the provision of any law, it looks at what is the mischief in society which the law was introduced to cure.

“So, if someone is in an executive office, instead of distracting that person from doing his work by taking him to court and prosecuting him, the law will say just concentrate on what you are doing, in four or eight years, the work will be over, and you can be asked to come and account for your deal.

“Laying that foundation, I honestly do not think immunity should be scrapped.”

His Ogun State counterpart, Mr Oluwasina Ogungbade (SAN), said the move by the House of Representatives would not enhance the fight against corrupt public officials.

Ogungbade said that if perchance the House succeeded in pulling through with the bill, it would only encourage “a rash of politically motivated allegations of corruption and wrongdoings.”

He said, “I also hope that the removal of immunity for only those proposed will not lead to a rash of politically motivated allegations of corruption and wrongdoings, to achieve unjust and illegal removal from office of elected officials.”

The justice commissioner said he had read the report and wondered why the bill chose to spare the president but went after the governors and their deputies.

He said if the immunity clause would be removed at all, it should apply to the president too.

“I have also read reports about the proposed amendment. My first reaction is to question why the removal is proposed to be limited only to those mentioned. Why is the president not included?

“If immunity is to be removed, then it has to apply to all elected officials without exception.

“However, I have doubts that the proposed removal will have any meaningful impact on the fight against corruption,” he said.

The Ogun AG was, however, quick to add that it was the complete revamp of the criminal justice system, including the investigative techniques and procedures of the major crime agencies, that could help to give the corruption fight a bite and not the removal of the immunity clause.

“I am aware that at the moment, persons who once occupied those offices and have been out of office for years are either still under investigation or prosecution.

“Why is this so? The point is that the immunity clause is really not the problem.

“If we cannot investigate and prosecute people when they are out of office, what assurance is there that we will be able to do so while they are still in office, enjoying all the powers and influence that come with that office?

“My take is that we must simply have a complete revamp of the criminal justice system, including the investigative techniques and procedures of the major crime agencies,” he added.

Defending the bill, Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State, in an exclusive interview with The TheNigerian in December 2024, said the removal of the immunity clause for the concerned public officeholders would breed a less corrupt society.

“With this bill, we want to see a less corrupt society, a less lawless, reckless society and a less undisciplined place.

“We must do away with this notion that we can go after these people when they leave office. What the hell is that?

“If people know that they can be pursued while in office, they’ll be more careful with their actions.

“It is counterintuitive to think that we have to wait until they finish their terms to take action against them,” he said.

Bob also argued that “If the vice president becomes president, even in an acting capacity, he can be entitled to the same immunity that the president has.

“But as vice president, he doesn’t need it. Governors don’t need it. The deputy governors do not need it because, in the first place, how do you give immunity to people who don’t need it?

“The things we permit in this country are not necessary at all. We need to think through these things, analyse them and tell ourselves the truth.”

In the proposed amendment, a new subsection 3 is inserted into Section 308.

“(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.

“(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.”

In the explanatory memorandum, the bill seeks to alter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to remove the immunity conferred on the vice president (except when acting as president), state governors and their deputies, and to qualify the immunity conferred on the president.

Some stakeholders, on Wednesday, rejected the four tax reform bills before the National Assembly – Nigeria Tax; Nigeria Tax Administration; Nigeria Revenue Service, and Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Bills, 2024.

The stakeholders made their positions known at a public hearing organised by the House of Representatives Committee on Finance at the National Assembly Complex in Abuja on Wednesday.

In its presentation, Kano State government challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the tax reform bills, particularly those granting the federal government extensive powers over state and local tax authorities.

Making the presentation, the Permanent Secretary, Office of the Secretary to the State Government, Umar Mohammed Jalo, called for the expunction of provisions that grant the tax reform bills constitutional supremacy over other laws.

He said: “This clause is objectionable as it grants this bill a constitutional status similar to military rule, which cannot withstand the scrutiny of constitutional validity. The supremacy provision should be deleted.

“These provisions are substantially in breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as the National Assembly lacks the competence to legislate on matters exclusively affecting state and local governments.

“Reducing funding to these strategic agencies will affect national interests in education, engineering, and information technology in adverse ways. TETFund, NITDA and NASENI should continue to be funded to support the nation’s aspirations for technological advancement, prosperity, and sustainable development.

“Increasing the VAT rate at a time when Nigerians are facing an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis will create more difficulties for families and elevate their levels of vulnerability and deprivation.

“Available information suggests ample room for improvement in coverage and collection efficiency. Weak compliance accounts for a significant portion of the inefficiency,” he stated.

However, the Kano State government expressed support for fiscal reforms while highlighting key concerns regarding the federal government’s ongoing tax system overhaul.

“The fiscal space needs to be enlarged. Public revenues at approximately 10% of GDP are currently too small relative to the daunting challenges of development. A more auspicious fiscal space will provide tremendous opportunities for the governors to deliver on their promises, including achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reducing poverty, and rebuilding infrastructure for growth, wealth, and job creation,” he added.

In its presentation, the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria (SCSN), represented by its Secretary General, Nafiu Baba-Ahmed, also expressed worry over five areas of the Bills.

He called the attention of the National Assembly to “Reduce VAT rates back to 5% or in worst case scenario maintain the present 7.5 %. Section 146 of the Nigeria Tax Bill, 2024 should read that: “Subject to the provisions of part IV of chapter eight of this Act, VAT shall be charged at 5% or 7.5% if necessary.

“Delete S. 154(4) that requires ‘person whose supplies are chargeable to VAT at zero per cent, shall pay VAT on taxable supplies consumed in the production of its supplies, and may there after request for a refund of the VAT paid’. List of VAT Exempted Items S.190 of NTB should retain all VAT exempted items listed in Finance Act (2020).

“The Council wishes to recommend as follows: Expunge the Chapter on Development Levy covering Section 59 (1-5) of the NTB and revert to status quo by retaining the sources of funding for the three agencies as provided in their Acts.

“Delete the consequential amendments to Sections 1, 2 and 3(3) of the TETfund Act, 2011 proposed in Section 198(5) of the NTB. Similarly, delete the consequential amendments proposed in Section 198(4 & 6) of the NTB affecting Sections 12 (2a) and 16, and the Third Schedule of the NITDA Act 2007, and Sections 20(2) paragraphs b(i) and b(ii) of the NASENI Act 2004.

“If the government retains the Chapter on Development Levy, retain Section 59(1) without (a-c), retain 59(2), retain 59(3) without (a-d), expunge 59(4), and retain 59(5), and share its revenue am ongst TETFund (60%). NITDA (15%), NASENI (15%), and the Student Education Loan Fund (109%).

“On Inheritance Tax Section 4 (3) of Chapter 2, Part 1 of the draft NTB provides that”. the income of a family recognised under any law or custom in Nigeria as family income, in which several interests of individual members of the family cannot be separately determined, is taxable.”

On the Nigeria Tax Administrative Bill, the council suggested some amendments to clarify the term “derivation” and address related concerns: Clearly define ” derivation” in the Bill as the location where actual consumption takes place, regardless of which office files the VAT returns.

“To provide clarification of VAT attribution, replace “supply or supplies” with “consumption and consumptions” in Chapter 6, Part 1, Sections 143, 144, 145, and 147 to attribute derivation tO consumption. Retain the current 20% share for derivation, attributed to the location of consumption.

“If adopting the 30% share for derivation suggested by the NGF, apply to only local VAT (55% of total VAT revenue according to information provided by the Presidential Committee), and share Customs and International VAl equally…”

In the same vein, Trade Union Congress (TUC) rejected the increment of VAT from the current 7.5% to 15%, saying it would place an additional burden on Nigerians, many of whom were already struggling with their economic challenges and realities.

According to the union’s secretary general, Nuhu Toro: “the gradual increment of VAT from the current 7.5% to 15%. Mr. Chairman and respected members, the TUC unequivocally rejects this proposition.

“Our reason is simple, allowing the VAT rate to remain at 7.5% is in the best interest of the nation. Increasing it would place an additional burden on Nigerians, many of whom are already struggling with their economic challenges and realities.

“At a time when inflation is on the rise, and unemployment is becoming an ever-growing concern, higher taxes will only further strain households and businesses alike. We must be mindful, Mr. Chairman, that such measures could slow down the economy.”

Speaking in defence of the bills, the Comptroller General, Nigerian Customs Service, Adewale Adeniyi said the proposed legislation is aimed at making Nigeria more business-friendly and competitive but raised concerns about potential jurisdictional conflicts.

He said :”Our concerns are laid out in a 17-page document, but key areas of conflict include Section 23, 29, and 41A of the Joint Revenue Bill,” said the representative. They pointed out that Section 162 of the bill essentially “legislates the Nigerian Customs Service out of existence.”

Adeniyi further argued that while tax is a vital revenue-generating tool, customs duties go beyond fiscal policy to promote industrialization, prevent environmental pollution, and uphold public health.

“The UK experience is instructive,” the representative continued, referencing the 2005 merger of customs and tax functions in the UK, which was later reversed due to operational inefficiencies. “In 2012, the UK separated border control functions, acknowledging the distinct nature of customs operations.

“With success stories like Morocco’s customs modernization, which increased revenue by 37% and reduced clearance times by 65%, Nigeria’s Customs Service argued for preserving its autonomy. In fact, the NCS noted that since the enactment of the NCS Act in 2023, Nigerian customs revenue had surged by 92%, and trade facilitation had markedly improved.
We should encourage collaboration between customs and tax authorities, not abolish customs or repeal an existing law.”

Christian and Muslim leaders on Monday clashed over the planned inauguration of shari’a arbitration panel across the South-Western states of Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Oyo and Lagos by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs.

This comes as the proponents of the Islamic code said there was no going back on their decision to set up the panel to adjudicate and resolve issues among the South-West Muslim Ummah.

The President, Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs in Ekiti State, Dr Hammed Bakare and the Chairman of the Shari’a Committee of Oyoland, Dr Rafiu Bello, told The TheNigerian in separate interviews on Monday that the shari’a panel would be inaugurated despite the opposition to it.

The shari’a council had moved to establish an arbitration panel in Oyo town to adjudicate and sit on matters relating to Muslims.

However, the development was opposed by the government and other leaders.

Following this, the planned panel inauguration billed to hold at the Muslim Community Islamic Centre in Mobolaje Area, Oyo, on January 11 was suspended indefinitely.

Last week, the panel held its maiden sitting at the Ekiti Central Mosque, Ado Ekiti with three Khadis forming the panel.

The Khadis include Imam Abdullahi Abdul-Mutolib, Imam Abdulraheem Junaid-Bamigbola and Dr Ibrahim Aminullahi-Ogunrinde.

Apparently uncomfortable with the idea, the state Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Dayo Apata, (SAN) said the existing legal structure in the state did not recognise the shari’a court or arbitration panel.

 “There is an existing legal structure in Ekiti State (the Customary Court, Customary Court of Appeal and High Court) that has been handling issues relating to Islamic, Christian and traditional marriages and inheritance without any rancour or agitation,” he argued.

Aligning with the state government’s stance, the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, Oba Adeyemo Adejugbe,  ordered the dissolution of the Sharia panel “in the interest of peaceful coexistence and law and order in the community.’’

Adejugbe spoke in Ado Ekiti on Saturday during a meeting he held with the chiefs and indigenes of the community and the Chief Imam and President of the League of Imams and Alfas in the Southwest, Edo and Delta states, Sheik Jamiu Kewulere; and other Muslim leaders in Ado Ekiti over the shari’a panel issue.

Speaking with The TheNigerian, the SCN President in Ekiti State, Bakare said the panel inaugurated by Muslims in Ekiti State ‘’will not be disbanded nor dissolved as being canvassed in some quarters.’’

Bakare, who said that the arbitration was not a court, but part of the dictates of the Islamic religion for the promotion of peace, added that the constitution guaranteed the right of worship.

The Islamic cleric queried, “Why should the panel be disbanded? For what? Can you ask somebody to dissolve his marriage or not to worship God the way he likes? It is not lawful for anybody to give such a command.’’

He added, “The panel is an arbitration that we established for ourselves, Muslims, and not even compulsory for all Muslims, only Muslims that are willing to abide by the dictates of Allah as written in the Quran.

“It is just part of our way of worship, to do things according to the dictates of the Almighty God. That panel is for us, not a court or anything like that. It is an arbitration panel that every organization can establish within themselves.”

Bakare, who said that the panel existed in some Southwest states, including Lagos and Oyo States, affirmed, “It is not a new thing. We have examples even in churches where they arbitrate among themselves without resorting to established courts.

“It is just to settle matters within us and the constitution of Nigeria gives us a guarantee of worship. It is part of worship in Islam to make sure that there is peace in your domain, organisation, society.

“There is nothing anybody can fear from the arbitration panel, we are not forcing anybody. It is for only Muslims who are willing to go to that panel, if you are not willing to go as a Muslim, nobody is going to coerce you to go.

‘’That is what we are doing. The constitution of Nigeria guarantees freedom of worship and practice. That is all we are doing.’’

He berated the opponents of the panel, saying, “All those tags against the panel are not genuine, they are just an attempt to discredit it. When they hear anything about Muslims, about shari’a, they don’t want to hear whether there is anything good in it or not, whether it concerns them or not.

“We believe that nobody can stop us from being Muslims. That is how we see it. We have nothing against anybody, we are not fighting anybody, we are just peace-loving Muslims, we want to contribute to peace because if there is peace somewhere, it will translate to peace in the society.”

The Islamic leader argued that the arbitration panel did not violate any law.

Speaking in the same vein, the Chairman of the Shari’a Committee of Oyoland, Bello insisted that the inauguration of the panel in Oyo State would proceed as planned.

Bello explained that a new date for the panel inauguration would be announced in due course.

He said similar panels already existed in other parts of Oyo State, including Saki, Kishi, and Ogbomoso, and that the controversy surrounding the Oyo town panel stemmed from ‘’the initial mislabelling of the panel as a shari’a court.”

“A new date for the inauguration has not been announced yet. The inauguration of the shari’a panel in Oyo town cannot be stopped.

‘’It was only postponed, and we will announce the specific date for it in due time, Insha Allah. It is our right, and there is no going back on setting up the panel. It poses no threat or harm to this society,” he declared.

Bello also dismissed concerns raised by some traditional rulers, emphasising that the constitution provides for such panels.

Across the South-West, Bello said the panels had before now existed in Lagos, parts of Oyo and Ekiti while the zonal headquarters for the Supreme Council for Shari’a in Nigeria was in Osogbo, the Osun State capital.

“We are not concerned about the pronouncements of certain traditional rulers. The Constitution allows for this, and we have the Supreme Council for Shari’a in Nigeria supporting us,” he added.

Furthermore, Bello explained that the panel was designed for willing Muslims to resolve issues such as inheritance disputes, marital conflicts, and disagreements among friends.

According to him, Muslim scholars will act as arbitrators, providing guidance based on the Quran without imposing penalties, unlike formal courts.

“This panel is meant solely for willing Muslims. Those alleging that it is part of a Fulani or Hausa agenda are ignorant. It will handle disputes between couples, friends, and others in line with Islamic principles.

‘’Panels like this already exist in Osogbo, Kishi, Saki, Ogbomoso, and Ibadan, so why is there an issue with Oyo town,?” he explained.

When asked under what legal framework the panel operates, Bello reiterated that it functions as an independent arbitration body, which does not require approval from the State House of Assembly.

“The Nigerian Constitution has provisions for it. The only mistake was in calling it a shari’a court instead of a sharia arbitration panel. This is purely for settling disputes among willing Muslims. Those behind the uproar are religious bigots,” Bello alleged.

Osun State Coordinator, SCN, Mallam AbulGaniy Ezra, said Governor Ademola Adeleke would be persuaded to allow the shari’a panel in the state transmute to a full-fledged court.

Ezra disclosed that the panel was inaugurated in the state in 2005.

According to him, the panel had resolved several civil matters, noting that the 1999 Constitution provided for the establishment of shari’a courts in the country.

He also said those opposed to the court’s establishment in South- West were not Christians, but those ignorant about the operation of the shari’a system of arbitration.

“Let me clarify that what people are referring to as the shari’a court is actually the shari’a arbitration panel and it has been held for about 20 years now in Osun.

‘’It holds regular sittings. They hold their arbitration every last Wednesday or Thursday of the month. The panel has been sitting at the Muslim Community Secretariat in Osogbo for close to 20 years now.

‘’The inauguration was done at Oja-Oba Central Mosque, Osogbo in 2005 and since then, sharia arbitration has been going on.

“We don’t want to stop at that, what we intend to do is persuade the Osun State governor, even though is our right but we don’t take it like that, we see it as something that can be agreed on mutually.

‘’We have common law courts here which are adjudicating on every issue that concerns citizens and non-citizens living in this country. Also, we have the customary court which is a provision of the Constitution, same as the shari’a court.

‘’So, I don’t know why people are making noise about the creation of the shari’a court in the South-West. Section 278 of the constitution said ‘there should be a shari’a court’ but anytime our people heard anything about shari’a court, they thought maybe some people wanted to start war. No, it is not like that. It is about giving the right of Muslims to Muslims,’’ he pointed out.

The Amir of the Muslim Students Society of Nigeria and one of the proponents of the panel,  Amir Sirajudeen Abdulazeez said there was nothing wrong with establishing a shari’a court in Ondo State, explaining that it was part of Muslim rights.

He also expressed optimism that the planned creation of the panel would take place in the state sooner or later.

‘’For you to say that Muslims do not have the right to adjudicate their lives based on their beliefs is nothing but an affront to their constitutionally given rights. It is nothing but subjugation, exploitation, and oppression.

“If Muslims are a minority in Ondo State, can’t we talk? If it is in our constitution, can’t we demand it? If civil law has its roots in the Bible, customary law has its roots in idolatry – why can’t Muslims speak?

“Whether shari’a court will happen in those states, it’s a matter of time. Muslims are agitating for it, demanding it. When the time comes, the government will listen to us. And when the time comes, the government feels like establishing it, they will establish it,” he declared.

However, the state Chairman of the Ondo State chapter of Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Pastor Joshua Opayinka said shari’a court was not feasible in the state.

He noted that it could only be replicated in the north where Muslims are in the majority.

The cleric said, “That (creation of shari’a court) is an aberration. Why shari’a court in Ondo State? No, that is not possible. Can the same thing be replicated in the north?

“They say that is their right. Nobody can stop them. Can we have full Christian worship activities in the north? Can they allow it? If they are canvassing that, we need to sit down at the round table and strike a balance.

“In the north, we have been marginalized. Christians in the north have not been permitted to have full operations of their Christian activities. So, why are they coming here? So to come and do that, that is not possible.”

The Organizing Secretary of the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation Afenifere, Abagun Kole Omololu, said importing religious law into the Yoruba culture would not be tolerated, stating that the focus of the South-west region was development.

He said, “What Yoruba wants is not religious bigotry, we are too closely knit as a race. Religion is the last on the pedestal of our priorities.  Ecclesiastical or shari’a law will not make us Dubai or Singapore.

‘’My grandfather, who died in 1957, was a Babalawo (herbalist), and yet Baba Egbe (elder) in the church.  The concoction he prepared against smallpox is still at the back of my father’s house. Yet, my dad was a chairman of a church too.

“Because we are uniquely homogeneous as a race, what binds us together is our tradition and not religion. Hardly can you find any family in Yorubaland that does not co-habit as traditional believers, Muslims and Christians. Introducing religious law into our family will encroach into our traditional family setting.”

The Yoruba Cultural Renaissance Advocates expressed its support for the Ewi of Ado Ekiti regarding the ban on the shari’a panel in Ekiti State.

The group stated that the Ewi’s pronouncement aligns with the principles of secularism and cultural sensitivity, and is essential for fostering unity in a diverse society.

In a statement issued by its President, Ifabunmi Esuremilekun, the YCRA commended the decision, describing it as a move that promotes religious harmony, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence among the various groups in Ekiti.

“Do they realize that the land hosting Ado-Ekiti belongs historically to the stool of the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti? Considering that many Yoruba Muslims are married to Yoruba Christians under a combination of customary, Islamic, and statutory laws, what legal framework would this panel use to resolve disputes?” the group queried.

It lauded the monarch and the state government for taking a bold step to uphold the nation’s secularity.

“This decision demonstrates a commitment to preserving secularism while fostering unity in Ekiti State. It is a vital step toward ensuring religious harmony, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence among its diverse population,” the statement concluded.

The Osun State Chairman, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Prof. Isaiah Adelowokan, said Christians in the South-West would oppose the establishment of a shari’a court in the region.

Adelowokan said, “I know no Christian who will ever say shari’a court should come to South-West. We are not in support of it.”

Osun State Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Mr. Kolapo Alimi, disclosed that the government has not received any request for the inauguration of a shari’a court in the state.

Alimi explained that a decision on such a request would not affect the peace of the state.

“We have not received any request for shari’a court in Osun. When we get to the bridge, we will know how to cross it. If we get the request, the government will consider the pros and cons and take appropriate action that will not jeopardise the peace of the state.

‘’This is a democracy. If they table it, the government will look at it and take appropriate action,” Alimi said.

Emeritus Professor of Islamic Studies and Chief Imam of Egba Gbagura, Abeokuta, Prof Kamaldeen Balogun, affirmed that there is no constituted shari’a court in Ogun State and any part of the South-West.

Balogun said that what is only common across the southwest are committees set up by the Muslims to adjudicate personal affairs that may arise among the Muslims like issues of marriage and divorce, among others.

The Muslim scholar said, “We don’t have constituted shari’a court in any part of the South-West as we have say in Kwara and others.

“What we have are committees or panels set up among the Muslims to address personal issues according to the dictate of our religion but I don’t know why people are now talking about having shari’a court, there is nothing like that.”

The President of Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Apostle Bello Otaru, said he was not aware of a shari’a court operating in the state.

Otaru, who is also the General Overseer of Signs and Wonder Church also known as Antioch Assembly, explained, “PFN is not aware of operating of shari’a court or plans to start one in Ogun State.

“In any case, we have cordial relationships with Muslim leaders in the state and we have a platform, Nigeria Inter-Religious Council, NIREC which provides a forum for us to always iron out any contentious issue, so there is peace and religious harmony in the state and that we shall continue to uphold and sustain for the good of all.”

However, a top Muslim leader who craved anonymity, disclosed that the Muslim leaders in the state would be meeting on the matter in the next few days.

The National Missioner and Chief Imam of the Ansar-Ud-Deen Society of Nigeria, Sheik Abdulrahman Ahmad, acknowledged that a shari’a panel had been operating in Lagos for 20 years.

“We have had shari’a panel in Lagos for almost 20 years now. There is no controversy about it. It’s not anything new in Lagos and it has been operating without any itch or controversy whatsoever. That’s why I said people should not bring any sentiment into it,” he offered.

He added, “What we must know is that there is a provision in the Nigerian Constitution for Muslims to have shari’a court if they want.

“It is a constitutional matter and the shari’a court as presently constituted applies to what they call Muslim Personal Law, marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so on. This is what the shari’a court is about.”

Subscriber groups have issued an ultimatum to the Nigerian Communications Commission, demanding the reversal of the 50 per cent tariff hike to 10 per cent by Wednesday, January 29, 2025.

The National Association of Telecoms Subscribers and the Association of Telephone, Cable TV, and Internet Subscribers of Nigeria have also criticised the Nigerian Labour Congress for its planned protest, urging the union to focus on its core mandate of protecting workers’ welfare.

While both advocacy groups recognise the financial burden posed by the tariff hike, particularly given the prevailing economic difficulties in the country, they oppose the NLC’s proposed protest actions, describing them as counterproductive.

The tariff increase, approved by the NCC on January 20, marked the first adjustment since 2013.

It raised the minimum cost of phone calls from N6.40 to N9.60 per minute, with the aim of addressing the widening gap between rising operational costs and revenues in the telecoms sector.

Telecoms operators had initially pushed for a 100 per cent hike, citing inflation and high operating expenses, but the NCC settled for a 50 per cent adjustment.

Speaking with Saturday TheNigerian on Friday, NATCOMS, President Adeolu Ogunbanjo, disclosed that there had been an engagement with the NCC as he hoped the regulator would respond next week.

“We have made our appeals to the NCC, and we are giving them time to respond. We prefer not to involve the press just yet, but if we don’t hear back from them by Wednesday, we will release a communique outlining the details of our discussions with them and start filing our lawsuit.

“Our engagement with the NCC has been centred on asking them to bring the tariff down to our desired 10 per cent. However, we won’t disclose the contents of our letter or the specifics of our discussions unless we don’t receive a favourable response by Wednesday. If that happens, we will pursue the matter in a civil manner, potentially taking legal action,” he stated.

According to Ogunbanjo, telcos are private businesses that must be protected.

He, however, urged the NLC to pursue solutions that would balance the interests of both consumers and operators.

“The NLC should not target the telecom operators —they are not a government agency. These are private businesses, not government entities subject to shenanigans. We want to handle this matter in a businesslike, civil manner,” he added.

Phone call and messaging tariffs have remained static despite operators grappling with rising operational costs driven by inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, and the heavy investments required to meet growing consumer demand.

These mounting challenges have placed immense financial pressure on the telecommunications industry, threatening its sustainability and its critical role in supporting Nigeria’s digital economy.

The National President of the Association of Telephone, Cable TV, and Internet Subscribers of Nigeria, Sina Bilesanmi, urged the NLC president to focus on labour matters and refrain from interfering in telecoms issues.

“I have reviewed the NLC Act, and there is no provision empowering them to delve into telecom-related matters,” Bilesanmi said.

“The NLC president’s priority should remain the welfare of his union members, not matters outside their jurisdiction,” he told The TheNigerian.

Bilesanmi noted that various advocacy groups, including his association, were already addressing consumer concerns within the telecommunications sector.

“We have been actively fighting for the rights of subscribers and ensuring their interests are protected,” he added.

Defending the association’s acceptance of the recent 50 per cent tariff hike, Bilesanmi explained that the decision was made to prevent the collapse of the telecom industry.

“We supported the increase because we want the industry to survive. A failing sector would result in job losses and widespread economic challenges,” he said.

However, he stressed that the association remained firm in its demand for improved service delivery.

Govt supporting telcos for revenue

Meanwhile, the NLC President, Joseph Ajaero, accused the Federal Government of prioritising revenue generation over the welfare of citizens by supporting the recent 50 per cent increase in telecommunications tariffs.

Speaking on Arise TV on Friday, Ajaero criticised the government for aligning with telecom companies while Nigerians grappled with the rising cost of living.

Ajaero, who leads a workforce earning less than $50 as minimum wage, expressed concern that the government was neglecting its regulatory responsibilities and acting as though private telecom companies were public enterprises.

He said, “These corporate entities will be smiling to the bank while poverty among Nigerians continues. That’s the challenge we face now. We hear the minister speaking as if these are government-owned businesses.

“When you increase tariffs by 50 per cent, aside from the taxes the government may collect, it’s seen as a way to boost government revenue. This has been the same approach even in the power sector.”

He warned that the tariff increase would disproportionately affect low-income earners, many of whom already struggled to cover basic living expenses.

“Government officials often say that higher tariffs are good, but this only pushes the people further down the poverty line. This is where we disagree. The government has not acted as a proper regulator to strike a balance between corporate interests and the welfare of the people.

“The government needs to strike a balance. For someone earning N70,000, paying over N10,000 on this tariff increase alone is significant. How will they afford transportation, housing, and other basic needs? It’s not realistic because, in reality, there’s no housing that costs N10,000, and transportation costs are equally high,” Ajaero said.

The NLC president also criticised the government’s reliance on imported telecom and power equipment, arguing that local production of essential components like cables and meters could reduce costs.

He urged the government to encourage local manufacturing rather than passing the cost of importation onto consumers.

Ajaero criticized officials who defend the tariff hike on the grounds of inflation and operational costs, describing their arguments as a pretext to boost government revenue while neglecting the plight of Nigerians.

NLC planned protests

In a statement on Wednesday, Ajaero urged Nigerians to prepare for a nationwide boycott of telecoms services in protest against the planned hike.

The labour union expressed concern over the timing of the hike, saying it coincided with rising inflation and declining purchasing power.

The NLC president stated that telecom services had become a basic necessity, with the average Nigerian worker spending approximately 10 per cent of their income on telecom charges.

“Together, we will do our best to resist this injustice and demand that the government prioritise the interests of its citizens over corporate interests,” he said.