The recent furore over the decision by certain Northern states, such as Bauchi and Kebbi, to grant Ramadan breaks to educational institutions is not merely an issue of policy but a manifestation of a deeper ideological construct. The criticism, predominantly championed by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), does not arise in a vacuum. It is symptomatic of a broader dialectical struggle between entrenched religious identities, historical imbalances, and the pursuit of an “elusive” national unity. However, to challenge the Ramadan break without interrogating parallel accommodations for Christian practices is not an exercise in reason but in selective amnesia.
Nigeria, a nation forged from colonial contingencies, is an entity in which religious plurality has long been an undeniable fact. The Gregorian calendar, which dictates national timekeeping, is in essence a Christian construct. Despite this, Muslim citizens have historically consented to Christian holidays, Sundays and Saturdays as work-free days, without protest. The expectation that Islamic observances should not command similar recognition betrays a latent hypocracy in the very fabric of interfaith relations.
A fundamental principle of just governance is the equitable accommodation of cultural and religious diversity. The Ramadan break is not an imposition of Islam upon non-Muslims but a pragmatic acknowledgment of the lived reality of fasting students, whose academic performance and well-being may suffer without such consideration. Any society that values rationality must ground its policies not in transient emotions but in an objective analysis of equity and necessity. To this end, one must interrogate why religious accommodations have historically been skewed in one direction and contested in another.
To grasp the full picture of religious accommodations in Nigeria, let us examine historical precedents that, while favouring Christian interests, did not elicit equivalent Muslim outrage:
1. Nigeria’s Membership in the World Council of Churches (1962–1963):
Under Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a Muslim from Northern Nigeria, the country was registered as a member of the World Council of Churches and the International Bible Society, yet there was no resistance from the Muslim populace.
2. The Declaration of Saturday as a Work-Free Day (1973):
General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian, designated Saturday as a national work-free day to accommodate the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The Northern Muslim majority accepted this decision with no qualms.
3. Religious Exclusivity in National Invitations:
Around 1979, Ahmed Deedat, a globally respected Islamic scholar, was denied entry into Nigeria by the administration of General Olusegun Obasanjo. In stark contrast, successive Nigerian governments, including those led by Muslim presidents such as Shehu Shagari and Sani Abacha, extended invitations to Pope John Paul II without Muslim dissent.
4. The OIC Controversy (1986):
General Ibrahim Babangida’s decision to enlist Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was met with violent protests in several Southern states. This reaction stands in contrast to the peaceful tolerance displayed by Muslims when Nigeria joined organizations with pronounced Christian influence.
These instances suggest that the moral compass by which public debates on religious accommodations are judged is often not one of equal scrutiny but of selective indignation.
An additional layer of complexity is the dissonance in the approaches taken by Nigeria’s two major religious councils. The Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) has historically distanced itself from political activism, maintaining an ethos of religious neutrality. CAN, conversely, has positioned itself as an active participant in political discourse, often in ways that deepen sectarian divides. One need not look further than the controversy surrounding a former CAN President’s use of a private jet to smuggle foreign currency into South Africa, an act that exposed the organization to significant public scrutiny.
If CAN’s true concern were the preservation of a secular state, its advocacy would not be so inconsistently applied. The Ramadan break does not erode Christianity, nor does it violate constitutional principles of religious neutrality. What it does, however, is challenge a deeply ingrained assumption that Christian-centric accommodations are natural, while Muslim-centric ones are concessions.
The essence of a just society lies in its ability to foster mutual respect and balance competing interests without succumbing to majoritarian tyranny or selective favouritisms. If Nigeria is to progress beyond its sectarian entanglements, then reason, rather than reactionary fervour, must shape public discourse. In light of this, CAN’s opposition to the Ramadan break appears less as a defence of secular governance and more as an unexamined continuation of historical irregularities.
Mutual respect, after all, is not a one-way transaction. If Muslims have embraced Christian-influenced national holidays without contention, it is only reasonable that Christian organizations acknowledge the legitimacy of similar accommodations for their Muslim counterparts. Nigeria’s unity does not rest on religious hegemony but on the ability to recognize and honour the diverse beliefs that define its national character. To fail in this regard is to deny the very pluralism upon which the country stands.
Mr Mundadu writes from Kaduna
