The Unworkability Of The Proposed Bill On Ecclesiastical Courts

Last week, the Bill seeking to establish the Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory and the 36 states of the federation scaled through the second reading at the House of Representatives.
    The bill defines the functions and jurisdiction of the courts as well as the qualifications of their judges. The judges, according to the bill, shall be “Cardinals drawn from the Christian faith.”
    When established, the Ecclesiastical Courts “shall complement the regular courts in adjudicating in matters relating to the tenets of the Christian faith between individuals and groups that yield and submit to its jurisdiction.
    Sponsored by some questionable “Christians” led by Representative Gyang Istifanus and eight other equally doubtful Christians, the bill seeks to “exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Ecclesiastical Law and Christian Personal Law.”
    Section 27 C (1) (2) of the Bill, gives details of jurisdiction of the court, among which are any question of Christian personal law regarding marriage concluded in accordance with that law; including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such marriage or a question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship or the guardianship of an infant.”
    In the first place, the bill should be regarded as dead on arrival as it is diversionary, dubious and a duplication of extant civil and municipal law.
    Adjudication of family relationships is vested in civil courts which can determine even divorce or guardianship cases. It is even more suspicious when the judges of the spurious Ecclesiastical courts are to be “cardinals drawn from those learned in law (who) shall be required to administer justice in accordance with the Christian faith and the law of the nation.” Which cardinals does the bill mean? Catholic cardinals? Never.
    Clearly this bill seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil courts for ulterior motives. It is even more frightening when it is suspected that the obnoxious bill seeks to oust the laws promulgated by the Universal Church and codified in the Code of Canon Law.
    Without prejudice to civil courts, the Catholic Church has ecclesiastical marriage tribunals to adjudicate matters concerning marriages. It must be borne in mind that according to the Code of Canon Law “A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death” (Canon 1141).
    The introduction of this contentious bill at a time when the House of Representatives was considering the enhancement of the powers of the Sharia Court of Appeal in the Federal Capital Territory to include jurisdiction over criminal matters, heightens the suspicion that Sharia law is being contemplated for the country.
    Nigeria is a secular state. Various surreptitious attempts have been made in the past to introduce Sharia into Nigeria under different guises: the unilateral registration of the country into the Organisation of Islamic  Countries (OIC), the introduction of the Islamic Bank, and the establishment of Sharia courts in some Northern states. Both the Ecclesiastical and Sharia Courts are amendment bills, meaning that they seek to add more teeth to the extant laws. This indeed is dangerous, if not disastrous to the nation.
    The Buhari-led administration is unarguably one with sympathy for the Islam, himself being a devout Muslim, a mujahidum. But Nigeria is bigger than any religious group and would certainly resist any attempt to foist any religion on them, under whatever pretence.
    We are unequivocal in condemning the proposed Ecclesiastical bill. We equally call for its immediate abrogation. Let whoever that is behind it know that the bill will never succeed. This might as well be the acid test for the country's unity