OpinionPerspective

Dr. Gbadebo’s Call on Muslims not to Vote: A Clear Case of Jurisprudential Sterility

4 Mins read

By Abdulmalik Ahmad Zaruq

At the outset, it must be unequivocally stated that Nigeria is not a secular state where there is zero consideration for religious beliefs and rites. In Nigeria today we have the national boards that overseer how pilgrims set out anually on religious itineraries either to Makkah, or Jerusalem. A secular state should have no business apportioning part of its budget to regulate religious itineraries.

Usually, at any weekly FEC meeting where fiscal decisions that change and determine the future of this country are taken, the regulators commence it by way of supplicating to God. Secular regulators should not remember God before chunning out their policies.

In the same vein, Nigeria is not an Islamic state, because it’s not controlled by the Qur’an, neither is it an ecclesiastical state, because it’s not governed by the Bible. Rather, Nigeria is a multi-religious state, where people of divergent reglions with different denominations gather and converge together in order to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God.

Thus, every Nigerian – muslim, christian or traditionalist- is deemed to have submitted and pledged allegiance to the corporate overlord called “Nigeria”, with terms and conditions apply. The terms and conditions are nothing but FREEDOM, EQUALITY, AND JUSTICE. These are the cardinal principles upon which the Nigerian Constitution is based. No law in Nigeria, theoretically and practically should contravene those principles, and if any law purportedly does, it will be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.

It follows therefore, to ask whether the aforementioned principles entrenched in our Constitution, and upon which the social contract was signed in Nigeria by all and sundry, are ISLAMIC OR UNISLAMIC ? IS FREEDOM UNISLAMIC ? IS EQUALITY UNISLAMIC ? IS JUSTICE UNISLAMIC ?

  1. With respect to FREEDOM, In Islam, Freedom of human beings is considered the nucleus of humanity. This is depicted in a plethora of Quranic injunctions and sunnatic practices, to wit : “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong..” Q:2 V:256 . “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” Q:109 V:6

These verses are in consonance with the right of every Nigerian to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed under section 37 of the Constitution, to wit: ” Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including to change his religion or belief…”

  1. With respect to EQUALITY, Islam essence is to establish EQUALITY in the world, that’s why the prophet, in is his farewell sarmon stressed this message: “O people (he didn’t say Muslims), indeed, your lord Is one, your father is one, all of you are from Adam, and Adam is from dust, there is no speciality for an Arab over a non-arab, or for a non-arab over an Arab, no speciality for a white over a black, or for a black over a white except with rightousness….”

He’s also reported to have said with respect to non Muslim nationals in Madina which he governed, then: ” they are entitled to what muslims are entitled to, and are obligated by what muslims are obligated by”

The concept of equality in The Nigerian Constitution is vividly in parri Passu with that which is aforementioned in the sunnatic practice. No favouritism, no sectionalism, no discrimination.

  1. With respect to JUSTICE, the crux of Islam is justice. Justice in Islam is the ocean from which other principles flow.

The Qur’an states: “Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with JUSTICE…” Q:4 V:58

Taking from his sunnatic practices In Makkah, before his proclamation as Allah’s messenger, Prophet Muhammad participated in what’s called Hilf al-Fudūl, (‘Pact of the Virtuous’). It was an alliance or confederacy created by the Meccans in the year 590 AD, to establish justice for all through collective action, even for those who had no connections to the powerful. Because of The Prophet’s role in its formation, the alliance plays a significant role in Islamic ethics.

It must be noted that, the people with whom the prophet struck the pact, were non Muslims, yet, he went on to enter into alliance with them because he was desirous of establishing justice in the land of Mecca. Mecca itself was not an Islamic state then, as Nigeria is not, today. However justice was a cornerstone in the pact to which he aligned himself .

It follows therefore, that Muslims, in trying to entrech justice and peace, can build a nation with non Muslims and participate in the civic rights exercisable by every citizen, including VOTING AT ELECTION PERIODS, to elect into office people they think will uphold those cardinal prophetic principles, FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE in any confederacy, nation or state. They draw from the prophet’s precedent.

Yes, the Muslims, and particularly the northern Muslims under the stewardship of Ahmad Bello Sardauna, the great grandson to The Mujaheed, Uthman Foede, and Abubakr Tafawabalewa and the entire emirs and scholars in Nigeria signed the amalgamation pact of 1914 to be part and parcel of the country, in order to live in peace and harmony, with various elements of of the country. Because they believe that those cardinal prophetic principles will always be respected, implemented and promoted in all niches of the Nigerian society. And they did that with all sense of consciousness and righteousness in implementation of the prophet’s precedent.

As scholars, our duty is not to crack that pact laid down by the prophet and former leaders by directing people not to participate in electoral processes, our duty is to guide them as to how to vote putting into consideration those prophetic principles.

Zaruq writes from FCT, Abuja via @ aahmadzaruq@gmail.com

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com