Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has shed light on the historical controversy surrounding the implementation of Sharia law in northern Nigeria, asserting that the movement was heavily driven by political expediency rather than genuine religious devotion.
Speaking on the highly debated topic, the elder statesman recalled the intense deliberations that took place during his tenure as military head of state, particularly during the sessions of the Constituent Assembly where Sharia law emerged as a major flashpoint of national division.
The Constituent Assembly Debate
According to Obasanjo, the push for the Sharia Court of Appeal was intensely championed by certain northern leaders. Seeking to understand the true motivation behind the aggressive push, Obasanjo decided to privately confront one of the prominent northern elites of that era.
“I was military head of state and Sharia became an issue in the Constituent Assembly. And I called somebody, one of the Northern elites, I said look, you people, Sharia Court of Appeal you won’t go there. You don’t take any of your issues there,” Obasanjo revealed.
The former president noted that the response he received confirmed his suspicions that the agitation had very little to do with religious faith and everything to do with political maneuvering.
“He said yes, but why are you doing this? He said politics… Politics, so what suits people politically?” Obasanjo recalled.
A Leadership Philosophy Based on Action
Reflecting on how this revelation shaped his approach to governance, the former president explained that he learned early on to judge Nigerian politicians by their deeds rather than their pronouncements.
“So I don’t go by what people say or what they mean. I go by what they do,” Obasanjo added, suggesting that political rhetoric in Nigeria often masks the true intentions of those in power.
The implementation of Sharia law in several northern states in the early 2000s sparked widespread debate and social tension across Nigeria. Obasanjo’s retrospective comments offer a critical window into how national leaders perceived the constitutional and political battlelines of the era, reinforcing the view that religious sentiments are frequently weaponized for political gain.