SOKOTO: The Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), His Eminence, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III, deserves commendation for his reported appeal that Muslims should be allowed to practise their religion freely without compelling others to embrace their faith or interfering with the rights of people of other religions.
Speaking at the NSCIA Special Prayer for the Nation and its 2026 General Assembly in Abuja, the Sultan reportedly emphasised that Islam does not advocate forcing people to accept the faith and that religious freedom must be exercised with respect for others.
His message, particularly his rejection of religious compulsion, provides an opportunity for a broader national conversation about religious liberty, constitutionalism, mutual respect and the responsibilities of religious leadership in a pluralistic society.
However, the significance of the message extends beyond its immediate audience. The fundamental question is whether Nigeria is prepared to translate the principle of religious freedom into a consistent and enforceable reality for every citizen, irrespective of religious belief.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
Religious liberty in Nigeria is not merely a matter of religious tolerance or the goodwill of influential religious leaders. It is a constitutional guarantee.
Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, guarantees every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief and the freedom to manifest and propagate one’s religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to the constitutional provisions governing those rights.
Equally significant is Section 10, which provides that the Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as a state religion.
These provisions establish an important principle: Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians, not exclusively to Christians, Muslims or adherents of any other religious tradition.
A citizen’s entitlement to constitutional protection does not depend on whether that citizen belongs to the religious majority in a particular community, state or region. Nor should access to public opportunities, security, justice and equal treatment be determined by religious affiliation.
The Constitution must therefore remain the common ground upon which Nigerians of different faiths coexist as equal citizens.
The SULTAN’S MESSAGE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-COMPULSION
The Sultan’s reported declaration that Muslims do not intend to force others to join Islam deserves particular attention.
The principle that religion should not be imposed by force is fundamental to peaceful coexistence. Genuine faith cannot be reduced to an act of coercion, intimidation or compulsory conformity. Religious conviction must be distinguished from submission compelled by fear.
The Sultan’s reference to the Islamic principle commonly translated as “There is no compulsion in religion” reinforces this position. The principle is expressed in Qur’an 2:256 and is widely recognised as an important statement against compelling people to embrace Islam.
It is equally important that people who voluntarily embrace a religion should be free to practise it without intimidation, discrimination or unlawful interference. The protection of religious liberty must extend both to the right to retain one’s existing beliefs and to the right to adopt a different faith.
However, religious freedom must be reciprocal. The liberty claimed by one religious community must also be respected when exercised by another.
If Muslims insist on their freedom to worship, Christians and adherents of traditional African religions are equally entitled to practise their faiths. If Christians demand protection for their churches and religious gatherings, they must equally respect the lawful rights of Muslims to worship in mosques and observe their religious obligations.
The same principle applies to people who profess no religious belief.
Religious freedom loses its moral credibility when it is defended only for one’s own community and denied to others.
BEYOND FINE WORDS: THE REALITY OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Nigeria’s challenge is not simply the absence of declarations supporting religious tolerance. It is the difficulty of ensuring that such declarations are consistently reflected in individual conduct, community relations and public policy.
Across the country, concerns about religiously motivated violence, communal hostility, discrimination, inflammatory rhetoric and restrictions on religious expression continue to influence public debate.
These issues must be examined carefully, without exaggeration or the indiscriminate attribution of collective guilt. Not every security crisis in Nigeria is religiously motivated, and conflicts involving land, ethnicity, criminality, political competition and economic interests should not automatically be reduced to religious disputes.
Nevertheless, where religious identity is used to justify violence, exclusion, threats or the persecution of individuals and communities, the conduct must be confronted directly.
No appeal to religious identity should excuse the killing of innocent people. No theological disagreement should justify the destruction of places of worship. No individual or group should be permitted to intimidate citizens because they have embraced a different faith or declined to embrace one.
The responsibility to confront these abuses belongs not only to government and security agencies but also to religious leaders, community authorities, civil society organisations and citizens themselves.
Religious leaders occupy influential positions in Nigerian society. Their words can calm tensions, promote reconciliation and discourage extremism. Conversely, inflammatory statements, selective condemnations and the protection of offenders because they share a religious identity can deepen suspicion and hostility.
The Sultan’s appeal should therefore be understood as an invitation to all religious authorities to demonstrate, through their words and actions, that the protection of human dignity takes precedence over sectarian rivalry.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM MUST BE PROTECTED EQUALLY
One of the most important tests of Nigeria’s commitment to religious liberty is whether the rights of minority religious communities are protected wherever they live.
A religious community that constitutes a majority in one locality may be a minority in another. Constitutional protection must remain constant in both circumstances.
No state or local authority should treat religious minorities as unwelcome outsiders in their own country. Citizens must not be subjected to unlawful discrimination in employment, education, public services, access to justice or participation in public life because of their beliefs.
Likewise, lawful religious practices must not be restricted arbitrarily simply because they are unfamiliar or unpopular with the dominant community.
This does not mean that every activity undertaken in the name of religion is beyond regulation. Freedom of religion operates within the constitutional order and alongside the rights of others. Conduct involving violence, coercion or other unlawful acts cannot be immunised from legal accountability merely because religious justification is offered.
The distinction is between protecting genuine religious liberty and permitting violations of the law under the cover of religious identity.
Government must uphold that distinction impartially.
The police must protect vulnerable communities. Security agencies must investigate attacks without religious bias. Prosecuting authorities must pursue credible cases in accordance with the law, and the courts must dispense justice without fear or favour.
Where the state fails to protect one community because its members are politically inconvenient, geographically isolated or religiously unpopular, it weakens the constitutional promise made to every Nigerian.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE QUESTION OF of NATIONAL UNITY
Nigeria’s diversity should not be treated as an incurable national weakness. It can become a source of cultural richness, social cooperation and collective strength if managed through fairness, mutual respect and effective institutions.
However, unity cannot be sustained by slogans alone. It requires citizens to believe that the state belongs to them equally and that their rights will be protected even when they disagree with the majority.
The Sultan’s call for Muslims to see themselves as one family and work together for peaceful coexistence is a useful reminder of the value of internal solidarity. Yet national cohesion demands something broader: solidarity across religious boundaries.
A Muslim should be able to defend the rights of a Christian neighbour without being regarded as disloyal to Islam. A Christian should be able to defend the rights of a Muslim colleague without being regarded as disloyal to Christianity. Nigerians should be able to condemn an injustice against any community without first calculating the political or religious implications of their position.
That is the foundation of genuine citizenship.
Nigeria’s leaders must also recognise that religious tension can be exploited by political actors seeking to mobilise supporters through fear, prejudice and misinformation. The public must therefore be wary of statements that turn religious differences into instruments of political manipulation.
National interest demands that political leaders refrain from exploiting religious divisions and that religious leaders resist efforts to enlist their institutions in campaigns of hatred.
The enduring question is not which religion enjoys the greatest influence, but whether the Nigerian state can guarantee justice, dignity and security to everyone.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP
The Sultan’s position carries particular significance because of his standing in the Muslim community. Such influence creates an opportunity to promote moderation, peaceful coexistence and respect for constitutional rights.
Other religious leaders should embrace the same responsibility.
The Christian Association of Nigeria, leaders of Islamic organisations, traditional religious authorities and other faith-based institutions should work towards a shared commitment to religious liberty. They need not abandon their doctrinal differences to agree that no Nigerian should be subjected to violence or coercion on account of religion.
Interfaith dialogue should go beyond ceremonial meetings and public declarations. It should include practical cooperation in conflict prevention, community mediation, peace education, assistance to vulnerable people and the prompt condemnation of religiously motivated attacks.
Religious institutions should also educate their followers about the distinction between defending their beliefs and violating the rights of others.
The objective should not be to erase religious differences, which are an ordinary feature of a plural society, but to ensure that those differences do not become excuses for hostility or injustice.
WHAT GOVERNMENT MUST DO
Ultimately, the protection of religious freedom cannot depend exclusively on the goodwill of religious leaders. The Nigerian state has a constitutional responsibility to safeguard the rights of its citizens.
Three priorities are especially important.
First, law enforcement must be impartial. Attacks, threats and acts of intimidation motivated by religious intolerance should be investigated promptly, with credible offenders held accountable through due process.
Second, public officials must avoid discriminatory policies and practices. Government decisions affecting religious expression, public services and access to opportunities must conform to the Constitution and applicable law.
Third, authorities should invest in prevention. Community-level dialogue, civic education, responsible public communication and early intervention in emerging disputes can help prevent local disagreements from escalating into wider violence.
These measures must be implemented consistently, regardless of the identity of the victims or perpetrators. Selective justice is not justice, and selective protection cannot produce lasting peace.
Religious leaders, for their part, should support lawful accountability even when those accused of wrongdoing belong to their own communities.
CONCLUSION: THE TEST IS CONSISTENCY
The Sultan’s reported appeal for freedom of worship and his rejection of religious compulsion deserve to be welcomed as a contribution to the national conversation on religious liberty.
But the real test of the message lies in its consistent application.
Freedom of religion must protect Muslims and Christians, adherents of traditional African religions, members of minority faiths and those who choose not to profess any religion. It must protect the right to worship, the right to change one’s faith and the right to live peacefully without religious intimidation.
It must also be accompanied by a corresponding obligation to respect the lawful rights of others.
Nigeria cannot build lasting unity if religious freedom is treated as a right for one community but a concession for another. Neither can the country achieve genuine peace where violence is condemned selectively, discrimination is excused by religious sentiment, or public authorities fail to enforce the law impartially.
The Sultan has articulated a principle that deserves wider acceptance. The responsibility now rests with all religious leaders, political authorities and citizens to ensure that the principle becomes a lived reality.
The ultimate measure of religious tolerance is not how passionately we demand freedom for our own faith, but how consistently we defend the freedom of others to practise theirs.
That is the standard by which Nigeria’s commitment to religious liberty, constitutional democracy and national unity should be judged.
Frank Odion Apokwu
Public Affairs Analyst
Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria
Tuesday, 13th October, 2026
