This post has already been read at least 11531 times!
Contents
By Dr. Frank Peter Ombugadu
Today’s piece was initially written without a title because I wanted us to begin, not with conclusions, but with questions.
However, in deference to the conventions of newspaper publishing, a title became necessary. The title above is therefore offered in the hope that both the writer and the reader will remain comfortable with it, without losing the desire to probe the original article by Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi, titled “Jingir and the Peace of Plateau State: A Case Study for Tinubu and APC.”
Citizen Bolaji O. Akinyemi’s essay does not ask us to hate, nor does it ask us to defend. It asks us to think.
The Socratic method, which is my preferred method of teaching, does precisely that: it tests ideas by questioning them until we discover what they truly rest upon.
The essay places before us a man, Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir. It places before us statements attributed to him. It places before us Plateau State, a land that has paid dearly for violence. And it places before us Nigeria, a nation still deciding what kind of country it wants to be.
So, before we agree or disagree, let us ask:
- What is the problem the essay is really about?
Is it about one religious leader? Is it about one political ticket? Or is it about something deeper: who gets to belong in Nigeria?
- What is peace, according to this essay?
Not silence. Not the peace of exhaustion.
Rather, it is “the kind of peace that allows a Christian to worship without fear, a Muslim to worship without suspicion.”
If that is peace, then what kind of language builds it, and what kind of language destroys it?
- What are we being invited to choose between?
The essay frames the choice as:
Religious Majoritarianism or Peaceful Coexistence?
So we must ask: Can a nation be both plural and owned by one group? Can citizenship be equal if belonging is conditional?
We will not begin by attacking Sheikh Jingir as a person.
We will not begin by defending or condemning a political ticket.
We will begin the way Socrates usually did: by questioning the assumptions, the language and the consequences behind the statements attributed to him.
Because in Nigeria, words do not merely describe reality.
Words can create reality.
And in Plateau, words and actions have buried people.
So let us examine the statements—not to win an argument, but to answer the essay’s final question:
«“What kind of Nigeria will emerge from our politics—one in which faith determines belonging, or one in which citizenship determines belonging?”»
Let the questioning begin.
THE SOCRATIC CLASSROOM
In this analysis of Jingir and the peace of Plateau State, I am using the text by Citizen Bolaji O. Akinyemi as my source material.
I am a teacher by profession, and my preferred method of teaching is the Socratic method.
The Socratic method does not rush to provide final answers. It asks questions. It tests logic, assumptions and consequences.
So, please, join me as we apply it to the series of statements attributed to Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir, as presented in Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi’s article.
And, by the way, Bolaji Akinyemi clocked 60 just a few days ago. I am dedicating this intellectual exercise to him.
Happy birthday, Egbon.
Now, to the crux of the matter.
- ON THE NATURE OF HIS STATEMENTS: RELIGION OR POLITICS?
Premise from the text: Jingir is described as a leading JIBWIS figure whose words have extended beyond theology into politics, public policy and national affairs. Examples cited include comments attributed to him on the 2020 EndSARS protests, COVID-19 and the Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket.
Socratic Questions
- If a religious leader speaks on public policy, is he speaking merely as a private citizen, as a scholar, or as an authority whose words may influence his followers?
The text notes that Jingir himself clarified that his support for Tinubu/Shettima was his “personal opinion” and not the position of JIBWIS.
So, which weight should the public give such a statement?
- Does the assertion that a position is “based on religious convictions rather than a political campaign” truly separate religion from politics in Nigeria’s context?
In a plural society, can a call framed in religious terms avoid having political consequences?
Analysis
The text establishes what it presents as a pattern: Jingir has used his religious standing to comment on protests, health policy and elections.
Therefore, the issue is not whether he can speak.
The deeper question is what effect such speech has in a fragile and deeply plural society.
- ON THE MUSLIM-MUSLIM TICKET ADVOCACY
Premise from the text: Jingir became one of the prominent religious voices advocating the Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket in 2023 and has reportedly urged Muslims to sustain support for it ahead of 2027.
The text also attributes to him the use of the term “infidels” for Christians in the context of demonstrating Muslim “numerical strength.”
These are serious claims and, precisely because they are serious, they must be understood in their exact context and independently verified before being treated as established fact.
But assuming, for the purpose of this Socratic exercise, that the statements are accurately represented, let us proceed with the questions.
Socratic Questions
- If the goal is to demonstrate “numerical strength,” what exactly is the purpose of that demonstration?
Is it to win votes, to assert dominance, or to secure representation?
- Can one advocate for a political arrangement using religious identity without creating the impression that citizens outside that identity are excluded?
- If the word “infidels” is used to describe fellow citizens who are constitutionally equal, does that language build trust—or does it create an “us versus them” mentality?
The central question from the text is worth repeating:
«“Can the language of ‘us’ and ‘infidels’ produce the trust necessary to heal communities that have suffered years of bloodshed?”»
Analysis
The core tension is clear.
A citizen has a constitutional right to support any political arrangement.
But what happens when that political preference is framed as a religious contest?
Can a legitimate political choice become socially dangerous because of the language used to promote it?
- ON THE “QUIT NOTICE” CLAIM
Premise from the text: Among the most disturbing claims attributed to Jingir’s recent statement is the reported suggestion that Christians who reject the Muslim-Muslim ticket should leave Nigeria.
The original essay itself wisely notes that the precise wording and context deserve independent examination.
That caution is important.
Nevertheless, let us test the proposition.
Socratic Questions
- If a citizen is told to “leave Nigeria” because he or she rejects a particular religious configuration of political leadership, what definition of citizenship are we using?
- Who owns Nigeria?
The text provides its own answer:
«“Nobody gave Nigeria to Muslims. Nobody gave Nigeria to Christians. God gave us Nigeria, and our Constitution makes us equal citizens.”»
- If Jingir reportedly told Vice President Shettima that “peace had come to stay in Plateau” and that all faiths had resolved to coexist, can that commitment to coexistence comfortably coexist with language suggesting that citizens of another faith should leave the country because of their political choice?
This produces one of the most difficult questions in the entire discussion:
Can someone simultaneously serve as an ambassador of peace while using language that makes another citizen’s belonging appear conditional?
Analysis
This is the contradiction the author places at the centre of his argument.
Declaring peace after violence is one thing.
Using language that helps prevent violence before it occurs is another.
Peace is not merely what we declare after the bloodshed.
Peace is also what we say before the violence.
- ON RELIGIOUS MAJORITARIANISM VERSUS PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
The essay frames the national choice as:
Religious Majoritarianism or Peaceful Coexistence?
It asks whether numerical superiority in religion can become a legitimate basis for determining who should control the political destiny of a plural nation.
And if Muslims constitute a majority, does majority status confer ownership?
Democracy says no.
Nigeria’s constitutional order says no.
Socratic Questions
- If majority status confers ownership, what happens to minorities in Plateau and elsewhere in Nigeria?
- Is democracy simply about 51 percent ruling, or is it about 100 percent belonging?
- If peace in Plateau requires “a Christian to worship without fear and a Muslim to worship without suspicion,” can majoritarian rhetoric deliver that peace?
Analysis
The argument is that majoritarianism, when expressed as religious entitlement, threatens the very peace Plateau needs.
Peace must therefore be understood not merely as the absence of violence, but as the presence of equal belonging.
- ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERSHIP: TINUBU, APC AND JINGIR
The essay argues:
«“The President should not be expected to control every statement… But when any religious figure openly identifies his support… with a religious agenda, the President cannot afford the luxury of silence.”»
Socratic Questions
- If silence allows citizens to fill the vacuum with their own conclusions, what is the cost of not speaking?
- If Jingir’s position is personal, should the APC also make that distinction publicly to remove ambiguity?
- Can President Tinubu demonstrate clearly that supporting a Muslim-Muslim ticket does not mean supporting Muslim supremacy?
And if so, how?
Analysis
The author is not asking President Tinubu to denounce Islam.
He is not asking the President to condemn Sheikh Jingir as a person.
He is asking for a principle to be made unmistakably clear:
No Nigerian should be asked to leave Nigeria because of his or her political choice. No religious group owns Nigeria.
That principle should not be controversial.
THE TEN-QUESTION SOCRATIC DIALOGUE
Now, let us assume we are in a classroom.
For this moment, I am the teacher and you are the students. I know some of you may be older, better and more knowledgeable than me—shi ke nan. After the class, we can all return to our respective positions.
For now, this is simply a Socratic exercise.
I will ask the questions.
You will wrestle with them.
And I will insist on evidence.
I will use only the statements attributed to Sheikh Jingir as presented in Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi’s article.
QUESTION 1: ON AUTHORITY
If a religious leader uses his pulpit to comment on elections, protests and health policy, should the public treat his words as purely theological, or should they also be understood as political interventions?
Probe: The text cites comments attributed to Jingir on EndSARS, COVID-19 and the Muslim-Muslim ticket.
Follow-up: If he subsequently says, “This is my personal opinion,” does that change the way his followers hear it?
QUESTION 2: ON FRAMING POLITICS
When a political choice such as the Muslim-Muslim ticket is advocated using religious identity and terms such as “infidels” and “numerical strength,” what message does that send to citizens of other faiths?
Probe: Is the message about representation—or about dominance?
Follow-up: Can the same political objective be pursued without religious labelling?
QUESTION 3: ON BELONGING
If a citizen is told to “leave Nigeria” because he or she rejects a particular religious configuration of political leadership, what does that statement assume about who owns Nigeria?
Probe: The text asks: “Leave Nigeria and go where? Who’s Nigeria?”
Follow-up: Does the Constitution confer ownership of Nigeria on any faith group?
QUESTION 4: ON CONTRADICTION
If Sheikh Jingir reportedly told Vice President Shettima that “peace had come to stay in Plateau” and that all faiths had resolved to coexist, can one simultaneously be an ambassador of peace and tell another group that its citizenship is conditional?
Probe: What is the difference between peace declared after violence and peace built through responsible language before violence?
Follow-up: Which one is more likely to prevent bloodshed?
QUESTION 5: ON MAJORITARIANISM
If political power is to be allocated on the basis of religious majority, what protections exist for religious minorities in Plateau and Nigeria?
Probe: The text asks: “Does majority status confer ownership? Democracy says no. Nigeria’s Constitution says no.”
Follow-up: What happens to democracy when numbers become the sole basis for legitimacy?
QUESTION 6: ON LANGUAGE
Can language that divides people into “us” and “infidels” produce the trust necessary to heal communities that have experienced years of bloodshed?
Probe: Think of a Christian farmer and a Muslim trader in Plateau. How might such language affect their relationship?
Follow-up: What kind of language would build the bridge instead?
QUESTION 7: ON LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY
When a religious leader publicly ties his support for the President and Vice President to a religious agenda, does the President have a responsibility to respond?
Probe: The text says: “The President cannot afford the luxury of silence.”
Follow-up: If the President remains silent, what conclusions will citizens draw from that silence?
QUESTION 8: ON DISTINCTION
Is there a difference between supporting a Muslim-Muslim ticket as a political arrangement and supporting it as a declaration of religious supremacy?
Probe: The text asks the APC and President Tinubu to make clear that the Muslim-Muslim ticket is a political arrangement, not a declaration of religious supremacy.
Follow-up: Why does making that distinction matter for national unity?
QUESTION 9: ON HISTORY
The essay refers to the observation that Plateau leaders eventually acknowledged that religion had been exploited for political interests.
If that lesson is true, what should today’s leaders avoid repeating?
Probe: The text argues that the people of Plateau have paid too high a price for political and religious manipulation.
Follow-up: What would “Plateau defeating violence” look like in practical terms?
QUESTION 10: ON THE FINAL CHOICE
The deeper question is not simply Muslim-Muslim or Muslim-Christian.
It is this:
«“What kind of Nigeria do we want—one where faith determines belonging, or one where citizenship determines belonging?”»
Probe: Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi concludes:
«“I choose a Nigeria where the Muslim can remain Muslim, the Christian can remain Christian, and both can remain fully Nigerian.”»
Follow-up: Which Nigeria would you choose?
And, more importantly:
What must we all do to build it?
THE SOCRATIC SYNTHESIS
Let us test the central proposition with at least three questions—you should know me by now; I always insist on at least three.
- What is the goal?
Peace in Plateau.
Peace in Nigeria.
A nation in which citizens can live, worship and participate in public life without fear.
- What method is being proposed?
The text questions the use of religious majoritarianism as a basis for political choice and identity.
- Are the goal and the method compatible?
The essay argues that they are not when political mobilisation becomes religious domination.
And that takes us to the final question:
«“Will we choose a Nigeria where faith determines belonging, or one in which citizenship determines belonging?”»
Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi’s answer is clear:
«“I choose a Nigeria where the Muslim can remain Muslim, the Christian can remain Christian, and both can remain fully Nigerian.”»
That, for me, is the point at which the Socratic exercise becomes bigger than Sheikh Jingir.
It becomes bigger than Tinubu.
It becomes bigger than the Muslim-Muslim ticket.
It becomes a question about the kind of country we are building.
Because the ultimate test of a democracy is not merely whether the majority can exercise power.
It is whether the minority can live without fear.
And the ultimate test of religious freedom is not merely whether I can practise my faith.
It is whether I can defend your right to practise yours.
A Muslim should not have to become less Muslim to be fully Nigerian.
A Christian should not have to become less Christian to be fully Nigerian.
And neither should have to surrender his citizenship to accommodate the other.
Nigeria belongs to all of us.
So, class, that is where I will stop.
I have asked the questions.
Now, you answer them.
And remember the two rules of this classroom:
«“What evidence is that based on?”»
And:
«“What are the consequences if we accept that?”»
The goal is not to attack a person.
The goal is not to attack a faith.
The goal is to test whether the ideas and statements attributed to public figures can lead us toward the peace Plateau and Nigeria desperately need.
And finally, a word to my Oga at the top, Citizen Bolaji Akinyemi:
I hope you have no qualms with my borrowing your text as the source material for this intellectual adventure.
Well, even if you have, I will still push it joor!
After all, that is what happens when a good teacher meets a good text.
The conversation must continue.
Dr. Frank Peter Ombugadu shared on social media.
This post has already been read at least 11531 times!
About the Author
