The Zamfara State Government is at it again. As the year 1999 drew to a close, the regime of Governor Ahmed Sani, served notice that it was going to introduce the penal aspects of the Sharia Law. There was a national rumpus, especially from people of the southern parts of Nigeria and among the non-Muslim community, who have through the ages, opposed the move especially at constitutional talks. They felt it would violate the secular foundations of the nation. By April of the year 2000, Sharia penal code had become a reality in Zamfara State. Before long, every state government in the Muslim core north of Nigeria had to introduce it in their domain because the grassroots wanted it.
As was widely feared, the introduction of the penal code brought a widespread conflagration in Kaduna State in 2001 and effectively caused the city to be divided till date into Christian and Muslim zones, just like Jerusalem and Beirut in the Middle East. Further consequences of the new code included the cutting of hands here and there, the sentencing of women to death by stoning in Zamfara and Katsina states for alleged adultery and also the sentencing of a few convicted rapists to death also by stoning. All these drew a lot of negative attention to Nigeria and portrayed our northernmost zones as areas to watch in the unfolding war against terrorism being waged worldwide.
The major question that trailed the Sharia controversy was whether its introduction was in tune with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the legal document that binds all Nigerians together, so to say. While the anti-Sharia lobby argued that it meant two sets of laws for people of the same country and was also liable to tamper with the freedom of non-Muslims, the pro-Sharia group retorted that it guaranteed Muslims’ full rights under their religious codes and has nothing to do with non-Muslims. It, therefore, became a question of how you saw it from your own standpoint. In other words, there is no settled Nigerian position on whether the Sharia penal code introduction violates the Constitution or not. The matter is still pending at the Supreme Court, and the chances are that the powers that be would rather let it stay there undecided to avoid another round of squabbling.
The Zamfara Government, again, decided to introduce provocatively high school fees in its public schools, where the indigenes of the state enjoy free tuition. These fees were to be paid by non-indigenes only. This time around, however, Zamfara was not pioneering another odious policy. It claimed to be only copying from other states in the north, particularly Sokoto State, which had earlier on done a similar thing. Zamfara added a little more drama by barring non-indigenes from its public schools. What it means is that if you are not from the state, your children can only be educated in private schools.
The problems posed by these discriminatory policies border on constitutionality and morality. On the one hand, the citizenship rights of Nigerians, mostly non-indigenes, are seriously hampered. On the other, Governor Sani and his governing class have a lot of questions to answer to Nigerians, and we shall come to all that shortly.
If you are a Nigerian and a non-Muslim living in Zamfara State, you have to live your life according to the dictation of the Islamic fashion of life or you will be in trouble with the local authorities. Because you are not a Moslem, you cannot see how the constitution supports the law covering this policy. Your children are thrown out of the state’s tuition-free public schools just because you are not an indigene. You are forced, by law, to look for private schools for your children, where you have to pay through the nose. You once again check the Constitution, especially Sections 41 and 42, which deal with the rights to freedom from discrimination, and you cannot understand where Governor Sani and his fellow travellers derived the inspiration and powers to perpetrate their Apartheid-style of administration. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the Nigerian system has a very weak mechanism to secure redress for anybody being discriminated against outside his state of origin.
About the only option left for a non-indigene who is unable to cope with Zamfara’s discriminatory laws and policies, is to leave. But in most cases, leaving is not as easy as it seems. A far-flung state like Zamfara, with very low economic prospects, is likely to have a majority of non-indigenes being workers on Federal Government posting. How does a federal civil servant “leave” under these circumstances?
Apart from the constitutional perspective, there is the moral consideration. A non-indigene in Zamfara will feel cheated and persecuted by the Governor Sani regime. He is supposed to continue to pay his taxes just as any other person residing in the state, and yet, he is not allowed to enjoy some of the rights that go with the civic responsibility.
Beyond all these is the bigger national question. When a state government deprives non-indigenes the right to social and economic goods that government traditionally dispenses to the citizenry, that government is in effect, cheating the Nigerian nation. The Nigerian federation provides up to 95 per cent of funds used in running each of the 36 states and 774 local government councils making up t
