KEY POINTS
- Ndigbo Worldwide Union Sharia statement backs US lawmakers’ call.
- Group says dual legal systems undermine national unity.
- Pressure mounted on National Assembly for constitutional reform.
An Igbo pressure group, Ndigbo Worldwide Union, has backed calls by United States lawmakers for Nigeria to remove Sharia and blasphemy provisions from its Constitution, arguing that dual legal systems are incompatible with a modern state.
In a statement signed by its President, Benjamin I. Nwankwo, and Secretary, Chief Charles Edemuzo, the group said retaining Sharia alongside the country’s common-law framework creates structural contradictions that weaken national unity.
The Ndigbo Worldwide Union Sharia position aligns with remarks attributed to US Congressman Riley Moore, whose proposal the group described as overdue.
Ndigbo Worldwide Union Sharia Position
“A country cannot claim to operate a common-law system while simultaneously running a full religious criminal code,” the statement said. “Two legal systems cannot coexist in a serious nation.”
Furthermore, the group argued that constitutional recognition of Sharia, combined with Nigeria’s membership of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, fuels tensions and contributes to recurring violence in parts of the North.
It then said resistance to external recommendations to review the provisions reflects “official hypocrisy” and avoids confronting underlying legal and political inconsistencies.
Call for Constitutional Reform
Ndigbo Worldwide Union further urged northern political leaders to adopt what it described as a uniform, egalitarian legal framework or consider a separate political arrangement rooted in Islamic law.
Referencing cases such as the killing of Deborah Samuel and the captivity of Leah Sharibu, the group said unresolved disputes over religious law have heightened divisions.
“The National Assembly is at its moment of truth,” the statement said, calling for constitutional reform through a referendum if necessary.
The Ndigbo Worldwide Union Sharia stance frames the issue as a national crossroads, warning that failure to address legal disparities could deepen existing fault lines.
