See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281750865

Secularism, Secularisation and the Secular Nigeria Project

Chapter · October 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2335.0248

CITATIONS READS
0 1,263

1 author:

Adeyemi J Ademowo
Afe Babalola University
37 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Indigenous Mechanism for Conflict Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adeyemi J Ademowo on 19 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Secularism, Secularisation and the Secular Nigeria Project

Adeyemi J Ademowo

A DRAFT

Introduction

Man is fast losing his spiritual essence to his pompous knowledge and its dynamic power
which has immensely affected the world in all its ramifications…we are (today) living in
a world where science and arts are being aggressively deployed to wage war against the
spiritual man. Religious symbols are being destroyed by drunken secularism, driven by
_
the Western world.”1 Nigerian Pilot, September 21, 2012

The above is typical of the view held by many, most especially Nigerians, about the modern
world and the ideologies that continually shapes it. Ideologies such as secularism, humanism,
liberalism, and so on, no matter their appeal, are resented by those who feel the ideologies do
more harm to the ‘African’ society than the good they promised. To these antagonists of the
seemingly western –isms, therefore, modernism, and its attendant ideologies, are at best
appalling and must be avoided like a plague. For instance, the writer of the article cited at the
beginning of this work while commenting on the issue of religion, modern ideologies and the
African states moved on to infer further that “it is appalling how modernism spearheaded by the
West is so desperate to desecrate holy symbols and divine personalities in the name of liberal
artistic, scientific, philosophical and cultural expressions {in African states}.”2 The writer then
singled out secularism for special attack:

..but because a few individuals and groups are resilient against the abominable
heresies, lies and manipulations of Western secularism, as well as philosophers’
iconoclasm, the secularists seem to have resorted to incitements and hatred
against all faith.3
This is exactly where the writer, like others who hold similar belief, missed the point! Although
this position is representative of the many accusations made against secularism the fact is that the
conclusion that ‘Secularism is against all faiths’ is unfounded, mischievous and, at best,
misleading. As would be unveiled in this work, two issues are of concern to the secularists:
neutrality of the state to all beliefs (and unbeliefs) and the privateness of all beliefs. The
secularists are particularly worried about how a state is able to patronize all religions, while
staying neutral to all of them at the same time, without violating the citizens’ right to be free
from discriminations. This work therefore explores the ideals of secularism with special focus on
what makes a secular state truly secular. We also examined the many impediments to the
secularisation of the Nigerian state. In conclusion, after exhuming the impediments to the
‘Secular Nigeria Project’, the paper suggests the possible path(s) to achieving a truly secular
Nigerian state.

Secularism: A Survey of Definitions

Secularism has a root in the Latin word, ‘Saeculum’ which means ‘this present age’. It is a
liberal principle; an outgrowth of the liberal outlook on the social existence of man. According to
Austin Cline, George Jacob Holyoake (who is acclaimed to be the originator of the term
‘secularism’) claimed that ‘secularism’ is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on
considerations purely human considerations, and intended mainly for those who find theology
indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable4.

To Holyoake, the essential principles of secularism are:

(a) the improvement of this life by material means;
(b) that science is the available providence of man, and
(c) that it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is
good, and it is good to seek that good.”5
To Robert Ingersoll, secularism is the religion of humanity; it embraces the affairs of this world;
it is interested in everything that touches the welfare of a sentient being; it advocates attention to
the particular planet on which we happen to live; it means that each individual counts for
something; it is a declaration of intellectual independence; it means the pew is superior to the
pulpit, that those who bear the burdens shall have the profits and that they who fill the purse shall
hold the strings. Ingersoll further claims that secularism is a protest against ecclesiastical
tyranny, against being a serf, subject or slave of any phantom, or of the priest of any phantom. It
“is a protest against wasting this life for the sake of one we know not of. It proposes to let the
gods take care of themselves”.6 It means living for ‘ourselves’ and each other; for the present
instead of the past, for this world instead of another.

Virgilius Ferm, on his part, defined secularism as a “variety of utilitarian social ethics which
seeks human improvement without reference to religion and exclusively by means of human
reason, science and social organization”7. It is a positive outlook which aims to direct all
activities and institutions by a non-religious concern for the goods of the present life and for
social well-being.6

When “Secularism” was first used in the middle of the 19th Century English, the primary
ideological underpinning was to denote the doctrine that morality should be based on rational
considerations regarding human well-being in this world, to the exclusion of considerations
relating to God or the afterlife8. Later, the word, ‘Secularism’, was used more generally for the
belief that public institutions, especially general education, should be secular not religious. In the
20th century, however, the term has acquired a somewhat wider range of meaning, derived from
the older and wider connotations of the term “secular.”9 In particular it is frequently used, along
with “separation,” as an approximate equivalent of the French term “laicisme,” also used in other
languages, but not as yet in English.10

According to Austin Cline, the descriptions of Secularism by Holyoake, Ingersoll and Ferm,
suggest that, secularism was a ‘positive philosophy that is concerned entirely with the good of
11
human beings in this life’ . The improvement of the human condition is treated as a material
question, not spiritual, and is best achieved through human efforts rather than supplications
before deities or other supernatural beings. Cline concluded that:

Today, the philosophy that was called secularism tends to be labeled

humanism or secular humanism and the concept of secularism, at least in
the social sciences, is much more restricted. The first and perhaps most
common understanding of “secular” today stands in opposition to
“religious.” According to this usage something is secular when it can be
categorised with the worldly, civil, non-religious sphere of human life. A
secondary understanding of “secular” is contrasted with anything that is
regarded as holy, sacred, and inviolable. According to this usage
 something is secular when it is not worshipped, when it is not venerated,
and when it is open for critique, judgment, and replacement.12
Cline’s position above underscores the prevailing understanding of (and against) Secularism in
contemporary discourse. However, what is most clear is the fact secularism does not mean the
total absence of religions in the state. Rather, it is the absence of a state sponsored religion so
that everyone will be free to choose a religion of their choice. People are free to follow which
religious tenets they like without any fear of, intimidation or victimization. Another name for this
is Church-State separation.

However, as Gbadegesin13 rightly observed, contemporary usages of the word, secularism, can
be of two forms, namely, hard secularism and soft secularism. The hard secularists, according to
Gbadegesin, considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by
neither reason nor experience14; while, in the view of soft secularism, the attainment of absolute
truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the guiding principle and
overriding values15. Soft secularism is therefore more receptive as it appreciates certain ‘truism’
or truth in all religions or, and even, unbelief.

Secularisation and the Secular State

A secular state is a society that has passed through the process of ‘secularisation’, which is an
“historical process through which society and culture are delivered from tutelage of religious
control and closed metaphysical worldview”16. Regardless of the popular misconceptions that
surround it, secularism is not a principle of anarchy (even though there are many religious people
who would give it this interpretation to condemn it). Secularism is a principle of tolerance. A
secular society that is established on the principle of secularism does not force beliefs (or
unbelief) on its citizens; neither does it limit the expression of people’s beliefs, and even
unbelief. Of course, it recognises the need to distinguish legitimate harmless beliefs from
subversive beliefs. But while it deals with the latter, by meting out appropriate penalties, it not
only tolerates the former, but also provides for the punishment of prospective violators of the
rights of freedom of conscience.17

A secular state is therefore any state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of
religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion; a state that treats all its citizens equally
regardless of religion or irreligiosity; and claims not to or ceases to give preferential
treatment(s) to a citizen (or citizens) of a particular religion over another with different
religions/non-religious affiliation(s). Historically, the process of secularising states typically
involves the following:

 granting religious freedom,

 disestablishing state religions,
 stopping public funds to be used for a religion,
 freeing the legal system from religious control,
 freeing up the education system,
 tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and
 allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs.18
These ideals are so endearing hence Peter Berger sees ‘secularisation’ as the process by which
sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and
symbols.19
The roadmap to a secular state according to Moojan Momen20 most therefore involve the
following key paths:
1. "The loss of prestige of religious institutions and symbols" and the decline in influence of
religious organizations over state actors;
2. "The separation of society from the religious world, so that religion becomes purely personal
matter" (and irreligiosity does not attract condemnation);
3. "Religious groups themselves become increasingly concerned with the things of this world
rather than the spiritual world."
4. The loss of the idea of the sacred. "As science increases our understanding of humanity and of
the world, the area of 'mystery' and the supernatural decrease";
5. "Decline of popular involvement in institutionalized religion. This can be seen in the decline
in church attendance, with fewer marriages, baptisms and funerals being performed under
religious auspices"21;

In all of these paths, there is the belief that economic freedom or wealth plays a vital role; the
more prosperous a state is, the higher the probability that her citizens would be receptive of
secularisation. While the inner logic of the economic sector perhaps makes it the most
convenient arena for secularisation, other sectors, notably the political, have been found to be
less amenable to it.

Two traditional theories of secularisation suffixes here: demand-side theories and supply-side
theory. Demand-side theories focus ‘bottom-up’ on the mass public suggesting that as societies
industrialise, religious habits will gradually erode, and the public will become indifferent to
spiritual appeals22. The supply-side theory, on the other hand, focuses ‘top-down’ on religious
organizations as it “emphasizes that the public demand for religion is constant and any crosss-
national variations in the vitality of spiritual life are the product of its supply in religious
market’23. The supply-side theory therefore suggests that the more churches or mosques/or other
religious center established, the more people will become attracted to religion. Whichever of the
two is explored, the buck stops on the table of the state actors: the state can decide which path it
wishes to take to institute secularism and channel its path to ‘secularisation’.

Currently, there are four senses in which a state can construct its attitude to religions:
a. Secular Attitude of Indifference (SAI): This means an attitude to religion whereby the state
exhibits lack of concern about religions and religious matters. The state with this attitude is
expected to be indifferent to the existence or non-existence of religions. But the truth is that there
is hardly any state that can afford to be unconcerned about religious matters since they have the
tendency of being relatively dangerous and volatile or affect the social order.24

b. Secular Attitude of Rejection (SAR): the state that operates this attitude is secular if it rejects
all religious considerations; including overt or covert relationship with religions. The ‘secular
state’ that operates on this assumption rejects religious considerations as anti-development. One
however needs to take a second look to understand how it is possible for a state, any state, to
adopt and operate based on this mantra.25

c. Secular Attitude of Exclusion (SAE): This is the total omission of religious considerations in
the plans of the state. Religion and religious groups are not recognized as ‘religious’ but as social
group. However, the possibility of a state operating with this attitude is very low because no state
(secular or otherwise) can afford to exclude (omit) religious consideration (in general) from its
calculations, if only because of the prudential need to arm itself against subversive activities of
adherents of religions.26

d. Secular Attitude of accommodation (SHA): This means that the secular state will seek to treat
all religions equally in recognition, supports and funding. None of the religions and religious
groups will be taken or recognized as higher than the other.

All the four attitudes outlined above have implications on the nature of ‘secularity’ of the state.
However, to Olusegun Gbadegesin, the main focus of secularisation is the separation of religion
from politics, and state actors must never lose sight of this. To Gbadegesin, therefore, an
adequate interpretation of the principle of secularism that guides the secularisation process must
essentially include at least four related elements with respect to the separation of religion from
politics. These elements are:

1. refusal of the state to adopt an official religion,

2. non-encouragement of the incursions of institutionalised religions into the affairs of the

state or into matters which are best handled by the state,

3. neutrality of the state to religion and religious matters unless they are subversive or
threaten the existence of the state or are in other ways harmful to human interests, and

4. non-sponsorship and non-patronage of religious programmes or events by the state.27

Nigeria and the ‘Secular Nigeria Project’

The Nigerian state with over 250 ethnic groups is polarised along religious and ethnic lines, and
this significantly influences political decisions and policies of the nation-state. From
independence, the agitation of Nigerian nationalists for political independence was ‘secularised’,
in a way, with little consideration for religious and ethnic affiliations, but this does not suggest
the secularisation of the whole institutions. Religions, as Bolaji Idowu says, remain like a second
skin and vital in the construction of everyday experiences28. In fact, Olayiwola29 claimed that
religious beliefs continued to shape African societies, politics and economy even after
independence. Hence, religion has been both a disintegrating and an integrating factor even to
date. In present day Nigeria, religions (most especially the three main recognised religions –
Christianity, Islam and Traditional) have followers that cut across all the six geo-political zones
of North-West, North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-East and South. In addition, there
are pockets of adherents of other religions as well as atheism and those who claimed not to
belong to any organised religion. Religion has served historically as primary glue in
democratising societies and as a primary motivator in their socio-economic development.
Religion has served as both a positive force in nation-building and a negative major line of social
and political tensions in the past and the present. Hence, for scholars such as Olusegun
Gbadegesin, the dilemma facing the country is best resolved by adopting thorough-going
application of secularism by restricting religion into the private interpersonal affairs and
avoiding the involvement of the state in religious matters. This is what many has tagged as the
‘Secular Nigeria Project’ (SNP). The SNP is a projection intended to take Nigeria through the
secularisation process so that the ideals of secularism will guide the Nigerian state.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended in 2011, prohibits any
state religion: “The Government of the Federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as
state religion” (Section 10, CFRN, 2011)30. Unfortunately, those particular constitutional
provisions have been brazenly violated by both the leaders and the lead/followers alike. Many
politicians and members of the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government as well as
many other political office holders have overtly and covertly employed religion as an instrument
of political campaigns and retention of power. With the present open affiliation to ‘vibrant
religiosity’, the cherished (or dreamed) character of the Nigerian policy of secularism is very
weak or simply a farce. Indeed the idea of a ‘secular’ Nigeria is a fantasy that has remained
perpetually housed in the figment of Nigerians’ imaginations. The actions and inactions of the
government political leaders have shown that Nigeria is not practicing any form of secularism;
neither hard nor soft. Let us turn our attention, at this juncture, to examining some of these
flagrant violations of the ‘secular pact’ enshrined in the Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution, that
have undermined the much desired ‘Secular Nigeria Project’.

a. Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) Membership

In 1986, the country was engulfed by controversy over Nigeria’s secret admission into the
Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). Former military Head of State, Ibrahim Babangida
(unilaterally, without consultation with other bodies) upgraded Nigeria's role in the Organisation
of the Islamic Conference (OIC, now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), from an observer
status to full-fledged membership31. After public outcry and denial by Babangida, the John
Shagaya panel was instituted to determine Nigeria's status in the OIC, subsequently confirming
membership and making a recommendation for withdrawal from the body. Nigeria has never
been withdrawn from the OIC and remains a member. Sani Abacha, who overthrew the Interim
National Government set up when Babangida was forced out of office again unilaterally
registered Nigeria as a member of the D-8 (Developing-8), an organisation for development
cooperation among Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.
The D-8 was proposed by then Prime Minister of Turkey Necmettin Erbakan in October 1996
and is cooperation arrangement among major Muslim developing countries.

The Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) is a multilateral development financing institution

located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It was founded in 1973 by the Finance Ministers at the first
Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now called the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation).
The bank officially began its activities on 20 October 1975, inspired by King Faisal. There are 56
shareholding member states. On the basis of paid-up capital, major shareholders include: Saudi
Arabia, Libya, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, UAE, and Kuwait. The IsDB is an observer
at the United Nations General Assembly.

The question is: How can a secular state be a member of a religious-based funding group?

b. Islamic Banking

The conventional banking system is well known to Nigerians; thus a departure may be termed as
a variant of the conventional banking system or an addition to the numerous banking products
which existing banks offer in their atomistic efforts to competitively expand their share of the
market. Evidently, interest free banking is an innovation that must be credited to the religion of
Islam; however, it is not different from conventional banking.

The attempt by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to explore the possible adoption of sukuk
(Islamic) bonds for financing the infrastructural requirements in Nigeria has evoked arguments
from non-muslims and advocates of secularism alike. Their argument is that Nigeria is a Secular
State and hence the CBN is not expected to be enmeshed in religious affairs. However, the
difference between Islamic banking and conventional banking is basically on interest. While
conventional banks pay interest on deposits, and charge interest on loans and advances, Islamic
banking, which is guided by Islamic law as prescribed by the Shariah is interest free32.

The CBN may proceed with its desire to introduce interest free banking, however respect should
be given to the secular status of the Nigerian State by ensuring that guidelines for establishment
of interest free banking are not tied to any religion. Rather, general guidelines should be issued,
to accommodate interest free banking according to the precepts of any of the religions in Nigeria.

Additionally, the decisions to establish Islamic Banks have been based largely on political
considerations and the desire to attract capital from the Middle East. Apparently, this ability to
attract foreign finance from the Middle East; and loans from Islamic Development Bank, is the
basis for the CBN Governor’s intense desire to introduce Islamic Banking into the Nigerian
Banking System (the desire is evident in his announcement that CBN is in talks in efforts to
explore the possible adoption of sukuk (Islamic) bonds for financing the infrastructural
requirements in Nigeria). In other words the proposal to establish Islamic banking in Nigeria is
for reasons other than comparative advantage of the Islamic banking system over existing
conventional banking system in Nigeria.33

c. Pilgrimage

The Government at both federal and state levels expends billions of naira from the national
treasury each year to send Muslim and Christian pilgrims to places considered holy, Mecca and
Jerusalem, respectively.

In April and May 1958, Pilgrim Welfare Boards were set up in the North and West respectively.
But even at this time until the early 1970s, government role was largely limited to logistic issues.
Awash with oil money beginning in the 1970s upward as well as the desire for religious and
political relevance and survival, the government became fully involved by setting up the Nigeria
Pilgrims Boards (NPB) in 1975 which was hurriedly stepped down to the state levels. Since then,
government involvement has been on the increase, culminating in the passing into law of the
1989 decree which established the Nigerian Pilgrims Commission. With the comfort of air travel
and finances from the government, the number of pilgrims remarkably increased with obvious
implications on state resources.34
While the Muslims welcomed such government intervention and vehemently argued in its
support, Christians called for an end to government involvement. Because Christians were non-
beneficiaries at this stage, they regarded it as a clear demonstration of government partiality
towards Islam. In tandem with similar voices among Christians, CAN took the lead by suing the
federal government, demanding for government withdrawal on the basis that government
involvement contradicted Nigeria’s secular status and was discriminatory and hypocritical. On
the other hand as indicated, the Muslims felt that government was fulfilling its legitimate duty to
its citizens since Islam encompasses all of life with no distinction between the sacred and the
secular. In fact, they saw what the government was doing as a right. When the Christians
discovered that the government was adamant considering the political and financial implications,
they started to demand for equal treatment. Since the government was unwillingly to “steer
clear” of pilgrimage affairs as they wanted, they demanded for their own share of the national
cake. Their discontent however paid off with the setting up of Christian Pilgrims Boards across
federal and state levels.

The statistics of Nigeria’s 2010 religious pilgrimages and its cost are indicative of the economic
implications on its economy. About 110,000 to 120,000 Nigerians participated in the exercise,
with 85,000 or 95,000 depending on sources on the Muslim side and 25,000 on the Christian side
respectively. Of this number, the government at both federal and state levels sponsored between
40 to 50 percent of the pilgrims, the cost of each pilgrim pegged at N460,000 and N540,000,
costing the government billions of naira.35

Meanwhile, the Presidential Committee on the Restructuring and Rationalisation of Federal

Government Parastatals, Commission and Agencies has recommended the scrapping of the two
pilgrims’ boards in the country. Those recommended for abolition are the National Hajj
Commission and the Nigeria Christian Pilgrims Commission. The committee, led by a former
Head of Service, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye, advised the Federal Government to stop sponsoring
pilgrims to holy places of worship outside the country with effect from 2012. It was the
viewpoint of the committee that the FG should encourage individuals to save towards funding
pilgrimages to their selected destinations. The committee submitted that the FG efforts in the
area of pilgrimage should be restricted to the provision of consular services and procurement of
necessary vaccines for intending pilgrims. The committee recommended that the functions of the
two boards be transferred to a department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.36

Oronsaye and the members of the committee observed that the FG spent a total of N6.5bn on
pilgrim-related issues between 2007 and 2011. Figures made available to the committee showed
that the government had a budget of N4.706bn for the maintenance of the personnel of the NHC
and the NCPC from 2009 to 2011. The committee gave the breakdown of budgetary allocations
to the NHC (for Muslims) as N997,470,875 (2009); N860,970,875 (2010); and N931,854,782 in
2011. It said the NHC got budgetary allocations of N651,236,008 (2009); N495, 065,610 (2010)
and N769,359,205 in 2011 for Christians). While N2.790bn went to the NHC, N1.916 was
expended on pilgrims-related issues by the NCPB.37

d. Shariah Law

In June 2000, Zamfara state had adopted a very strict variety of what the authorities deemed to
be Islamic Sharia law. Prior to this adoption, Sharia law was used in Nigeria to regulate personal
affairs among Muslims. From June 2000 to first half of 2001 eleven states in Nigeria chose to
follow Sharia law38.

To many Islamic activists, the secular basis of the Nigerian state is yet more evidence of cultural
imperialism. Secularism, to them, is a Christian belief. The Constitution represents imposed
British law, hence Christian law, hence secularism. Alternately, some Muslim activists who
understand that British law is based on Roman law see it as imposed paganism. Rather than a
secular state, then, some Muslims advocate a “pluralistic confessional state”39. They object to the
imposition of a secular legal system “on a people who are by no means secular,” arguing instead
that for Muslims, religious freedom is the freedom not to separate mosque from state.

e. Prayers during State Functions and Ceremonies

In Nigeria, official/State events are either commenced with interdenominational service in the
church or mosque, or concluded with one, with either a “Special Thanksgiving Service” or
“Interdenominational Service”. Worship places are also constructed or sited within the state
secretariats or Government Houses to offer prayers.
Placing Nigeria on the Path to Secularism

That most Nigerians are adherents of diverse religions is a fact. Unfortunately, there is constant
competition between the two notable religions, Christianity and Islam, both battling to be
recognized as more relevant and dominant than the other. Hence, there is so much
disagreements, bickering and religious scuffles concerning which is more dominant among the
two main religions, as much as there is glaring disagreement on the ‘secular’ nature of the
Nigerian state. In fact there are those who are strongly convinced that the ‘Secular Nigeria
Project’ is a failed project40.

However, regardless of the challenges bewitching the secularisation project, Nigeria cannot
afford to abandon the ideals of secularism which has been found endearing and human rights
friendly. Indeed, the history of Western Civilisation has proved conclusively that secularity
works and is the best way in a multi-religious society like Nigeria. Religion should be kept
entirely private. No public funds should be expended on religious activities at the detriment of
social amenities. By doing this, everyone would be accorded a sense of justice and there will be
peace. Again, with the emergence of Boko Haram insurgents, Nigerian government must now be
more proactive to strengthen the secular status of the country. The Nigerian government should
be seriously committed to upholding the principles of secularism in public affairs.

It is advisable, at this point, that in order to demonstrate its seriousness and dedication to the
Secular Nigeria Project, Nigerian leaders must revisit the amendments suggested by Enyeribe
Onuoha41 to Section 10 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. Presently, the provisions of Sections
10, does not stipulate any consequences that that should follow its provisions. Hence, according
to Enyeribe, the following amendments are vital (and should be added to enrich the provisions):

1. That no government in Nigeria, Federal, State or Local shall fund religion or religious
activities in any way,

2. No government in Nigeria shall affiliate in a religious organization, within or outside, the

nation

3. No government shall adopt a law peculiar to any religion

 4. No government in Nigeria shall participate officially in religious services, activities or
programmes or adopt religious names, images or symbols nor participate in the selection,
appointment or installation of religious authorities.

5. Religion shall not be taught, and proselytizing shall not be practiced, in public schools,
hospitals, and institutions.

6. The State shall not take over property belonging to religious organizations without paying
adequate compensation.

7. Any State that breaches section 10 of the Constitution shall be deemed to have withdrawn
from the Federation and, therefore shall, after due process, be denied Federal allocation
of funds until purges itself of its effrontery.’’42

The essence of these amendments is to clarify the constitutional provisions and make Section 10
more justiceable because it has been interpreted with good and selfish intents, at the detriment of
the principles of secularism, for a long time. However, despite the appeal of such amendments,
some problems are still envisaged because in a democracy in which the majority wants a
particular brand of a religion, or a particular religion to be dominant, it will seem ‘tyrannic’ to
overrule their wishes with an appeal to what is suspected to be in the interest of ‘minority’. But
of course, since the ‘Secular Nigeria Project’ is desirable by the majority (across religious
boundaries), it is possible. The Secular Nigeria Project (SNP) would therefore have to imply that
the Nigerian-state would not only be separated from religions (and irreligion) but the political
actors must also be faithful to the tenets of its secularisation plans.

Notes and References

1. ‘The Limits of Secularism’ The Nigerian Pilot, September 21, 2012

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.
4. Austin Cline, ‘Secularism as Philosophy: Secularism as a Humanistic’
www.atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/a/philosophy.htm

5. Ibid.

6. See ‘The complete works of Robert Ingersoll’ www.infidel.org/historical.htm

7. Verligius Ferm, ‘Religion, Problem of Defintion’, in Vergilius Ferm (Ed.) An

Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Philsophical Library, 19950). p. 644-647

8. Cox, H. The Secular City (Toronto: Macmillan Co, 1971) and Anthony Kennyy &
Geraldine Smith, ‘Secularism and Secularisation’. An Irish Quarterly Review. Vol. 83

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Austin Cline, op. cit

12. Ibid

13. Olusegun Gbadegesin, “The Philosophical Foundations of Secularism” African

Philosophical Inquiry Vol. 2 Nos. 1-2 1988. p. 42

14. Ibid

15. Ibid.

16. Anthony Kenny & Geraldine Smith op.cit

17. Read the discourse on ‘Secularisation Theory: Will Modern Society Reject Religion?’
www.humanreligion.info/secularisation.html

18. Egboro E. M., “Interest Free Banking in Nigeria — Welcome Islamic Banking;
Welcome Christian Banking” JORIND Vol. 9 No. 2 December, 2011. p. 7. Available @
www.ajol.info/journals/jorind

19. Peter Berger, ‘Secularism in retreat’, The National Interest, No.46, Winter, 1997. P.3-13
20. Moojan Momen, The Phenomenon of religion (Michigan: OneWorld, 1999)

21. Ibid. p.56

22. Pippa Norris & Ronald Inglehart Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). P.14-17

23. Ibid.

24. Gbadegesin, op.cit

25. Ibid. p.37

26. Ibid. p.39

27. Ibid. p.38

28. Read Bolaji Idowu, African Traditional Religion: A Definition (England : Orbis Books,
1973)

29. Abdur-Rahman Olalekan Olayiwola, “Federalism, Ethnic Politics, State and Religion in
Nigeria” Journal of Arts and Contemporary Society Volume 4, March 2012. p. 10

30. Nigerian 1999 Constitution

31. Read ‘How Nigeria joined the Organisation of Islamic Conference’, www.forumng.com

32. Egboro op.cit

33. ‘Prospects in Islamic Banking’s Investment products-Proshare’

www.proshareng.com/news/10258

34. Chentu Dauda, ‘Nigerian Religious Pilgrimages: Piety or Economic Waste?’

www.tcnn.org/articles/RB54_chentu.pdf

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid

37. Ibid
 38. Ruud Peters ‘The Reintroduction of Islamic Criminal Law in Northern Nigeria’ 2001
www.ecoi.net/file_upload/mv/77_peters_ngrs0901.pdf

39. Joseph Kenny, ‘Islamic Revival in Confrontation with Christians’

www.dhspriory.org/kenny/YALE2.htm

40. Read Joseph Kenny’s position in his work cited earlier. Also read Ishaq Oloyede’s
position in his inaugural lecture “Islamics: The Conflux of Disciples’ at the University of
Illorin, Nigeria, 2012.

41. Enyeribe Onuoha’s World Humanist Day lecture 2004 on ‘Religion and State in Nigeria’
www.iheu.org/node/1759

42. Ibid

View publication stats