By Anthony Iwuoma
Kindly share:
The reported conviction and sentencing of Lami Samuel to 14 years’ imprisonment by a Borno State High Court is a deeply disturbing development that should alarm every Nigerian who believes in justice, constitutional democracy, religious freedom and peaceful coexistence.
Beyond the fate of one woman, the case raises troubling questions about the growing intolerance confronting Christians in parts of Northern Nigeria and the dangerous implications of allowing religious sentiments to acquire the appearance and authority of judicial legitimacy.
Can an adult’s decision to change her religious beliefs become grounds for imprisoning another person simply because she allegedly advised her to embrace a different faith? More fundamentally, has Nigeria reached a point where exercising or encouraging the exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom can attract criminal punishment?
According to reports, Samuel was convicted, following allegations that she advised an adult Muslim woman who subsequently converted to Christianity. Yet, in what should have been a significant consideration, the woman whose conversion triggered the prosecution reportedly testified that she embraced Christianity voluntarily, without coercion, deception or inducement.
That testimony raises an unavoidable question: If an adult exercised her free will in changing her religion, what exactly was the criminal offence committed by someone who allegedly advised her?
An adult is not the property of a religious community, family or religious establishment. She possesses independent legal personality and the constitutional right to determine matters of personal conscience. The freedom to embrace Islam, Christianity, another faith or no religion at all is fundamental to human dignity.
Section 38 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution expressly guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to change one’s religion or belief and to propagate it. This protection cannot be selectively applied to accommodate religious majorities while denying individuals the freedom to depart from inherited religious identities.
A constitutional right that exists only at the pleasure of religious authorities or community sentiments is no right at all.
Equally troubling are the reported questions surrounding the application of Section 210 of the Borno State Penal Code, identified in public accounts as relating to deprivation of a parent or guardian of the lawful custody of a child. If the woman whose conversion prompted the prosecution was an adult, the public deserves a convincing legal explanation of how that provision applies to the circumstances.
Of course, the complete judgment and evidential record must be examined before reaching a definitive conclusion about the court’s reasoning. If the prosecution established criminal conduct beyond the mere provision of religious advice, that evidence deserves proper judicial scrutiny. But religious disagreement, communal disapproval and the voluntary conversion of an adult cannot substitute for proof of a criminal offence.
The judiciary must never become an instrument for enforcing religious conformity. Its responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, protect individual liberties and administer justice without fear or favour.
More disturbing, however, is the broader implication of this controversy for Christian communities in parts of Northern Nigeria, where religious discrimination, intimidation and persecution have remained a source of considerable anxiety.
For too long, concerns have been raised about the treatment of Christians in certain northern communities, including restrictions, threats and hostility associated with religious identity and conversion. The Samuel case reinforces fears that religious intolerance is not merely surviving but could be acquiring more dangerous institutional dimensions.
Why should anyone feel entitled to fight another person’s religious battles as though God were incapable of defending His own honour? Why should an adult’s decision to embrace Christianity become a communal offence, requiring punishment? And why should the state be drawn into what is essentially a matter of individual conscience?
Faith cannot be defended through intimidation, imprisonment or the suppression of another person’s freedom. A religion that must depend on coercion to retain adherents has departed from the essence of genuine conviction. God does not need human beings to imprison others to prove His sovereignty.
Indeed, there is something profoundly contradictory about claiming to defend God by violating the fundamental rights of His creatures.
The danger becomes even greater when such intolerance appears to receive judicial validation. A private act of religious hostility is condemnable; when the authority of the state appears to give it legal legitimacy, the consequences could be considerably more destructive.
It risks emboldening religious extremists, legitimising discrimination and sending a frightening message to religious minorities that their constitutional freedoms may be subordinated to the sensitivities of dominant religious groups.
That is an invitation to anarchy.
Nigeria is a plural society. Its survival depends on the recognition that no religious community owns the country, its institutions or its laws. Muslims and Christians must enjoy equal citizenship, equal protection and equal freedom of conscience. The right of a Muslim to propagate Islam must be protected as firmly as the right of a Christian to propagate Christianity.
Anything short of this is institutionalised inequality.
The reported predicament of Samuel’s husband, Evangelist Amos Suleman, who was said to have been detained for months in connection with the case and subsequently forced into hiding, following alleged death threats, adds another disturbing dimension. If established, such threats demand immediate intervention by security agencies. Nobody should be driven underground for exercising or defending religious freedom.
Borno State, particularly Gwoza, has suffered enormously from insurgency, extremism, displacement and communal violence. Its people know the terrible consequences of allowing intolerance to flourish. It is, therefore, particularly unfortunate if the institutions entrusted with protecting citizens are perceived to be reinforcing the very divisions that have devastated communities.
There is a fundamental difference between defending one’s faith and persecuting another person for exercising freedom of conscience. One is a legitimate expression of religious conviction; the other is an assault on human dignity and constitutional democracy.
The reported 14-year sentence is also extraordinarily severe. Fourteen years is a substantial portion of a person’s life. Such punishment must rest on an unmistakably established offence, sound legal reasoning and proportionate judicial discretion, not religious sensitivities or communal pressure.
Christian associations, the media and credible civil liberties organisations should urgently examine the case, obtain the complete judgment and explore the constitutional grounds for an appeal. The Borno State Government must also ensure Samuel’s safety and access to appropriate legal representation, while security agencies investigate the reported threats against her husband.
Ultimately, this controversy is bigger than Lami Samuel. It is about whether Nigeria will remain a constitutional democracy where citizens are free to determine their religious identities or descend into a society where religious majorities dictate the limits of individual liberty.
The right to believe must necessarily include the right to change one’s belief. To deny that right is to turn religion from a matter of personal conviction into an instrument of coercion.
When religious bigotry wears the robe of justice, the danger is no longer confined to its immediate victim. It threatens the foundations of coexistence, equal citizenship and national unity.
Nigeria must not allow religious intolerance to acquire the seal of legality. That road leads not to religious harmony but to resentment, retaliation, mutual suspicion and ultimately anarchy.
There is a tragic irony that, in this age, parts of Northern Nigeria remain preoccupied with religious shadows while battling poverty, illiteracy, insecurity and chronic underdevelopment. Rather than confront these pressing challenges, some appear more concerned with policing religious choices and fighting perceived battles on God’s behalf. A region in desperate need of transformation should be pursuing development, not persecuting people over matters of faith.
A society that mistakes intolerance for piety and persecution for righteousness has lost its moral compass. God needs no human vengeance to defend His sovereignty. No faith is exalted by another person’s oppression, and no civilisation can survive when ignorance wears the mask of righteousness and injustice assumes the authority of law.
Anthony Iwuoma is a newspaper columnist and public affairs analyst
