Sheikh Jingir’s incendiary declaration

IN Nigeria, words from the pulpit are not always just words. In a country with a long history of religious tension, what an influential cleric says publicly can either calm people or deepen existing divisions. That is why Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir’s recent declaration deserves serious attention. His support for a continued Muslim-Muslim political arrangement is his right. But reportedly telling Muslims to collect their voter cards and “show the infidels their limit,” in reference to Christians, crosses a dangerous line.

There is nothing wrong with a Muslim supporting a Muslim candidate, just as there is nothing wrong with a Christian supporting a Christian candidate. Democracy gives every Nigerian that freedom. The problem begins when political competition is turned into a religious contest between “us” and “them,” particularly when one group is described as having to be shown its place. That kind of language does more than express political preference. It creates an atmosphere in which fellow citizens are treated as outsiders simply because of their faith. Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians. Muslims, Christians, traditional worshippers and people who practise no religion are equally Nigerian. Nobody’s citizenship is superior to another person’s because of religious identity. The Nigerian Constitution is clear on this principle. Section 10 prevents government from adopting a state religion. Section 38 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while Section 42 prohibits discrimination on religious grounds. These provisions are important because they remind us that citizenship is not determined by which religion has the larger population.

Sheikh Jingir has every right  to support President Tinubu or advocate for a Muslim-Muslim ticket. But freedom of religion and freedom of political expression cannot become a licence to demean other Nigerians particularly before a large audience and in the presence of political leaders. Nigeria has learnt, painfully, that inflammatory religious language can have consequences beyond the moment. In May 2022, Deborah Samuel, a student of Shehu Shagari College of Education in Sokoto, was killed by a mob following an allegation of blasphemy. Whatever one’s religious beliefs, no accusation can justify taking another person’s life. The incident showed how quickly religious emotion can overwhelm reason and the rule of law.

We also recall the controversy surrounding the cleric, Idris Tenshi, who reportedly described First Lady Oluremi Tinubu as an “infidel” in 2024 and called for her death because of her Christian faith. Although he later apologised, such provocative attacks are becoming one too many, particularly against Christians and the Christian faith. Shiekh Jingir’s remarks should not simply be dismissed as another political speech. Context matters. Words that might have a theological meaning within a religious discussion can take on an entirely different character when used at a political gathering to mobilise voters against another religious group. When “infidels” are presented as people whose “limits” must be demonstrated, the language becomes exclusionary and potentially threatening.

The National Human Rights Commission through its Executive Secretary, Chief Tony Ojukwu, SAN, described the remarks as hate speech and called for investigation by the police and DSS. That investigation should be allowed to run its course.

The presence of political leaders at the event also deserves serious attention. Reports identify Kano State Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf and Jigawa State Governor Umar Namadi among those present. Any governor who hears language that demeans a section of the people he governs has a responsibility to speak out. A governor does not govern only Muslims, Christians or members of his political party; he governs everyone. If Christians in Kano or Jigawa are made to feel that their citizenship is somehow inferior, their governors should be the first to reassure them that their rights and place in society are not conditional upon their religion. In this regard, Dr Rabiu Kwankwaso deserves credit for making it clear that Kano does not endorse such remarks. That is an important distinction. Rejecting religious intolerance is not a betrayal of the North. In fact, respected Muslim leaders should be at the forefront of rejecting language that could damage both Islam and the wider society.

ALSO READ: Atiku unveils new subsidy model

The Presidency should also not remain silent. If the government genuinely wants Nigerians to believe that the 2027 elections will be about ideas, performance and democratic choice, then it must discourage attempts to turn the election into a religious battle. Condemning inflammatory rhetoric does not amount to interfering with religious freedom. It is simply an affirmation that every Nigerian deserves equal dignity. And let us be fair: the same standard must apply to Christian clerics. If a Christian preacher were to describe Muslims in similarly degrading terms or encourage Christians to demonstrate their dominance over Muslims, the response should be exactly the same. Selective outrage is not justice. It is merely favouritism wearing the clothes of principle.

What Nigeria needs from its religious leaders is wisdom, not provocation; from its politicians, leadership rather than religious arithmetic; and from its security agencies, impartial enforcement of the law. Sheikh Jingir’s declaration therefore presents Nigeria with a larger question. Do the constitutional guarantees of equal citizenship mean anything when influential people can publicly demean another faith without consequence? Can Nigerian leaders confront intolerance even when it comes from their own political or religious camp? As 2027 approaches, these questions matter enormously. Nigeria cannot afford an election in which Muslims are mobilised against Christians, or Christians against Muslims. We have too much history, too many wounds and too much at stake. Religious freedom must be protected. Political freedom must be protected. Freedom of speech must be protected. But none of these freedoms should become a weapon for turning fellow citizens into enemies.

The greatest danger is not one provocative speech; it is what happens when such speeches become normal, when leaders hear them and remain silent, and when society gradually accepts intolerance as an instrument of political mobilisation. Nigeria must not wait until words turn into violence before deciding that enough is enough. A stitch in time saves nine.