By Gbolahan Badru
Introduction
The claim that Nigeria is a secular state has been repeated so often that it has attained the status of dogma in public discourse and various judicial pronouncements. From constitutional debates to courtroom rhetorics, “secularism” has become the fashionable shorthand for describing Nigeria’s religious posture. Yet, a deeper juridical and philosophical reflection reveals a startling contradiction that the Nigerian Constitution does not, either expressly or by implication, proclaim secularism whatsoever. What it declares is freedom of religion. The difference between these two is not only conceptual but also constitutional.
This article demystifies the notion of secularism within its historical, philosophical, and legal contexts. It argues that Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution was never intended to establish a secular state, but to protect religious liberty as guaranteed under Section 38(1). It also contends that the framers of the Constitution did not conceive a state stripped of faith, but one that respects plurality. Consequently, the frequent judicial and public claims that Nigeria is secular are products of conceptual confusion, not constitutional interpretation.
Conceptual Clarification of Secularism
The term secularism is notoriously elusive. Its meaning varies across time, culture, and constitutional context. Etymologically, “secular” derives from the Latin saeculum, meaning “of this world”, as opposed to that which is sacred or divine. In modern political thought, secularism connotes the institutional separation of religion from the state.
Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age (2007), observes that secularism is not the absence of religion but a condition in which religious belief is one option among many. José Casanova, in Public Religions in the Modern World (1994), defines it as the process through which religion ceases to dominate the public sphere and becomes privatized. Rajeev Bhargava (1998) argues that secularism, at its core, implies the state maintaining principled distance from all religions.
Secularism as a concept, according to Chaturvedi, is the giving up of religious thought and feeling in the normal day to day interaction in the society. Accordingly, Kehinde Adegbite reported the views of Omotola who defined secularism as ‘an ideology that holds that religious issues should not be the basis of Politics, or (in the extreme) that religion has no place in public life’. Essentially, secularism seeks to preserve the religious neutrality of government and cultures/religions.
In legal theory, secularism denotes a constitutional doctrine where the state neither establishes a religion nor interferes in religious affairs. The American constitutional model, anchored on the First Amendment, captures this through its “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses. Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.) defines secularism as “the belief that religion and religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.”
However, the idea of secularism is not monolithic. French laïcité is militantly anti-clerical, Turkish secularism enforces state control over religion, while American secularism champions neutrality. Therefore, to call a state “secular” requires identifying the specific form of secularism it practices. Nigeria, as we shall see, practices none.
Pre-Secular English Society and the Evolution of Secularism
To understand secularism, one must examine what preceded it, that is, the theocratic order of pre-modern Europe. In medieval England, the Church of England was not merely a religious body but an arm of governance. The monarch was both the temporal ruler and the Defender of the Faith. The Magna Carta of 1215 and subsequent religious reforms were early attempts at delineating royal and clerical powers.
The Reformation under Henry VIII (1534) broke the papal monopoly but did not secularize the state; it simply nationalized religion. Religious intolerance persisted through the English Civil War (1642–1651) and beyond. It was only after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 that limited religious tolerance emerged.
Philosophically, John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) provided the moral foundation for separating faith from coercive political authority. Locke argued that belief cannot be compelled by law and that the magistrate’s power extends only to civil interests, not salvation. These ideas inspired the American Founders and the First Amendment (1791): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Thus, secularism arose as a political safeguard against religious domination, not against religion itself. It was a remedy for Europe’s history of ecclesiastical absolutism, and not a universal formula for all states.
Understanding Secularism within the Nigerian Context
Nigeria’s religious topography is markedly different. The country is a mosaic of Muslims, Christians, and adherents of indigenous faiths. Its colonial experience was shaped by a Christian administration ruling over Muslim and traditional communities. The 1960 Independence Constitution, and those that followed, sought to maintain equilibrium between these religious forces.
It is an established principle that every government derives its authority from the Constitution and Nigeria is not an exemption. In 2003, in the case of A.G Abia v. Attorney- General of the Federation, 4 NWLR (Pt. 809) 124, the Nigerian Supreme Courts defined the constitution as “the grundnorm and the fundamental law of the land from which all other legislations in the land take their hierarchy and legitimacy” This means that Constitution in every given territorial and independent nation is believed to be a conceptualized supreme written or unwritten document of governance. It is believed to be the fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civic rights and civil liberties.
Moving from this, Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution provides that “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.” Section 38(1) complements this: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…”
A holistic interpretation reveals that Section 10 exists to secure the promise of Section 38(1). It prevents the government from coercing conformity to any religion, thereby ensuring that individual freedom of belief is genuine. To interpret Section 10 as implying secularism is to stretch its language beyond intent. The provision restrains establishment, not recognition.
The Juridical Confusion: Nigerian Courts and the Myth of Secularism
Several Nigerian courts have casually declared the country “secular.”. On the essence of and need to uphold Constitutional provision against adoption of State religion, the Supreme Court, as per AGIM, J.S.C. (Dissenting) in Lagos State v. Abdulkareem (2022) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1859) 213 at pages 355-356,paras. H-E:
“In any case genuine discussions involving the right to freedom of religion cannot disregard Sec. 10 of the 1999 Constitution. S. 38 1999Constitution which gives every person the right to freedom of religion is clearly in furtherance of S. 10 of the 1999 Constitution that provides that t he Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State religion. It is obvious that if the State adopts any religion as a State religion, the right to freedom of worship is destroyed. That is why no government should in the operation of State institutions allow anything or practice that suggests or creates impression of preference for or adoption of a religion by government. This was the reason for the decision by the Constitutional Court of Turkey upholding the ban on wearing hijab even in universities by adult females, which decision was affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in Leyla Sahin v. Turkey (Appeal No. 44774/98). It is noteworthy that the decision was based on provision of the Turkey Constitution exactly the same with sections 10 and 38 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria to protect the religion neutral nature of State-owned schools in keeping with the secular status of that country established by a provision exactly the same with S.10 of our Constitution. (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 177, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed this description…”
Again, in Musa v. State (2019) LPELR-46466(CA), the court observed that Nigeria, being secular, must not allow religion to dictate public policy.
However, these pronouncements are largely obiter dicta. They reflect sociological assumptions rather than constitutional exegesis. The Constitution nowhere uses the term “secular.” The framers’ intent, as reflected in the debates of the 1977–78 Constituent Assembly, was not to expunge religion from public life but to forestall the declaration of a state religion. Judicial declarations of secularism thus reveal interpretive laziness. The courts have often borrowed Western vocabulary without domesticating its meaning within Nigeria’s plural and theistic context.
The Constitutional Philosophy of Section 10
The jurisprudential essence of Section 10 is not to establish a wall of separation between religion and the state, but to ensure equal dignity for all religions under the law. It operates as a negative injunction, in preventing the state from adopting or preferring a particular faith while leaving room for positive recognition of religion as part of the national moral fabric.
Section 10 must therefore be read in harmony with Section 38(1). The latter grants individuals the right to practice, change, and manifest their religion; the former prevents the state from frustrating that liberty through institutional favouritism. The two sections form a complementary whole.
A purposive interpretation of the Constitution, guided by Section 318 (definition section) and judicial precedents like Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981) 10 SC 1, favours a construction that gives effect to constitutional intent rather than imported ideologies. The Nigerian state, by its very text and practice, affirms God as the moral source of legitimacy.
Constitutional Evidences Against Secularism
A truly secular constitution neither invokes God nor institutionalizes religion. Yet, the Nigerian Constitution does both. For example, the Preamble of the Constitution reads:
“We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria… having firmly and solemnly resolved… under God, to constitute Nigeria into a Federation…” The invocation of “God” in the preamble is a theological acknowledgment, inconsistent with the very notion of secularism.
Recognition of Sharia and Customary Courts serves as another headache to those who believe Nigeria is a secular state. Sections 260–264 and 275–279 of the 1999 Constitution provide for Sharia Courts of Appeal at both federal and state levels. Customary Courts of Appeal are similarly recognized. A secular state would not constitutionalize religious or customary adjudication.
Also, for proper and due composition of the court, Sections 231(3) and 238(3) require that persons learned in Islamic or customary law be included in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This constitutional inclusion of religious jurists is antithetical to secular neutrality.
Together, these provisions reflect a deliberate acknowledgment of Nigeria’s religious plurality, and not its secularization.
Extra-Constitutional Evidences
Beyond the constitutional text, government policy and practice consistently engage with religion. The existence of the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) and the Nigerian Christian Pilgrims Commission (NCPC) which are both established by federal statutes shows state involvement in religious affairs. Government-sponsored religious pilgrimages, public holidays marking Eid, Christmas, and Easter, and state participation in interfaith dialogues all demonstrate active religious engagement.
Religious organizations such as the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) are registered under the Corporate Affairs Commission pursuant to the Companies and Allied Matters Act. The state therefore recognizes religious bodies as corporate legal persons. This marks a clear indication that religion is part of the public legal order.
Public schools across the federation also provide for religious instruction under curricula approved by the National Council on Education. None of these align with secularist doctrines of strict separation.
Conclusion
The recurrent judicial and public rhetoric that Nigeria is a secular state remains a constitutional misnomer. Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution merely restrains governmental adoption of a religion; it does not expel religion from the public domain. When harmonized with Section 38(1), it becomes clear that the framers sought to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Comparatively, genuine secularism as a constitutional doctrine operates differently across jurisdictions. In France, the principle of laïcité, as entrenched in Article 1 of the 1958 Constitution, enforces an uncompromising separation between the state and religion. The 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and the State prohibits public funding or recognition of any religious activity. Religion, in the French conception, is an entirely private matter, and any overt religious display within state institutions is legally prohibited.
In the United States, secularism assumes a liberal form. The First Amendment commands that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Here, secularism means state neutrality, by neither aiding nor inhibiting religion. However, public invocation of God remains constitutionally permissible. American presidents take oaths on the Bible, legislative sessions open with prayers, and the national motto boldly declares, “In God We Trust.”
In India, the constitutional model is one of principled equidistance. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience, while the state retains limited power to intervene in religious practices that offend social reform or public order. The Indian Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, clarified that secularism in India does not mean irreligion but equal respect for all faiths.
When juxtaposed with these examples, Nigeria aligns more with India’s pluralistic recognition than with France’s rigid laïcité. Nigeria’s Constitution acknowledges God in its preamble, institutionalizes Sharia and Customary courts, and empowers religiously trained jurists to sit at appellate levels. The state also sponsors religious pilgrimages and observes faith-based public holidays. These are inconceivable in truly secular polities.
Thus, Nigeria is best described not as a secular state, but as a religiously conscious constitutional democracy. It is one that recognizes faith as an indispensable pillar of its moral and legal order while maintaining neutrality in preference. The framers’ intent was to protect the sanctity of conscience, and not to sterilize the public sphere of religion.
In essence, the Nigerian constitutional arrangement does not mirror the European struggle against clerical dominance that birthed secularism. It reflects a postcolonial effort to balance diversity without denying divinity. As such, the continuous labelling of Nigeria as secular reflects conceptual mimicry rather than constitutional accuracy.
A nation that begins its supreme law “under God,” funds pilgrimages, and constitutionalizes religious courts, cannot, by any coherent comparative jurisprudence, be classified as secular. Of course, the Nigeria’s identity is unique. It is a multi-faith constitutional republic anchored in the equal dignity of all who believe.
Gbolahan is a Law student at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto
09167190725
