by Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
The Nigerian Senate has once again ignited a national conversation—not merely because of the content of a proposed law, but because of what many Nigerians believe it symbolizes.
The Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Amendment Bill, 2026, recently passed by the Senate, proposes fines for preaching, hawking, or trading inside commercial vehicles. If assented to by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, offenders could face fines of up to ₦50,000, alongside increased penalties for other traffic-related offences.
On its face, the bill appears religiously neutral. It does not mention Christianity, Islam, or any other faith. It prohibits preaching inside commercial buses regardless of who is preaching.
Yet laws are judged not only by their wording but also by their real-world consequences and by the consistency with which governments enforce the law.
That is where the real debate begins.
The Real Question Is Bigger Than Bus Preaching
The controversy surrounding this bill should not be reduced to Christians versus Muslims.
That framing oversimplifies a much deeper constitutional and governance problem.
The more important question is this:
Why do some laws receive immediate federal attention while others remain unenforced for years despite affecting public safety and constitutional order?
This question goes to the heart of Nigeria’s federal system, the rule of law, and public confidence in government.
Three Issues Nigerians Often Mix
Public debate has combined three separate issues that are legally different.
Understanding these distinctions is essential.
1. Bus Preaching
The proposed amendment falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Road Safety Corps.
If signed into law, FRSC officers would have the authority to enforce it.
Legally, this is straightforward because FRSC is a federal agency operating nationwide.
2. Blocking Roads for Religious Activities
Nigeria already has laws against obstructing public highways.
Whether the obstruction arises from a religious gathering, a political procession, a market, or another activity, blocking public roads without lawful authority can violate existing public-order and traffic laws.
The challenge here is generally enforcement, not necessarily the absence of legislation.
3. Open Grazing
This issue is entirely different.
Many states—including Lagos, Ondo, Rivers, Ekiti, Enugu, Benue, Oyo, and others—have enacted anti-open-grazing laws.
The legal challenge is that policing in Nigeria remains largely under federal control.
As a result, states often depend on cooperation from federal security agencies for effective enforcement.
This creates practical and constitutional tensions whenever priorities differ between state governments and federal authorities.
The Difference Between a Legal Gap and an Enforcement Gap
Many Nigerians assume that because a problem continues, there must be no law addressing it.
That is often incorrect.
There is an important distinction.
A legal gap exists when legislation does not exist.
An enforcement gap exists when laws already exist but are not applied consistently.
The proposed FRSC amendment attempts to create a new regulatory framework.
By contrast, road obstruction and many grazing disputes frequently raise questions about whether existing laws are being enforced uniformly.
Neutral Laws Can Produce Unequal Effects
One of the strongest arguments raised by critics concerns disproportionate impact.
A law may be neutral in its wording yet affect one community more heavily because of how society functions.
For example, if one religious community more commonly conducts evangelism inside commercial buses, then prohibiting preaching in buses may have a greater practical impact on that community even though the law does not explicitly target it.
This does not automatically prove discrimination.
But it does justify asking whether the government is applying similar urgency to comparable public-order issues affecting other communities.
That question deserves careful and respectful consideration.
The Trust Deficit
Public trust is built when governments enforce laws consistently.
Public trust weakens when citizens perceive unequal priorities.
Whether those perceptions are fully accurate or not, governments ignore them at their own risk.
In democracies, perception often influences legitimacy almost as much as legal correctness.
Many Nigerians ask:
* Why do some issues move rapidly through the legislative process?
* Why do other longstanding public complaints appear unresolved?
* Why do similar concerns generate different levels of official urgency?
These are legitimate governance questions.
Federalism Must Mean More Than Words
Nigeria describes itself as a federation.
Yet one recurring debate concerns the balance of powers between federal and state governments.
Where states enact laws within their constitutional competence, questions naturally arise about how those laws can be effectively implemented if operational control over policing remains centralized.
This broader constitutional debate extends far beyond grazing laws.
It affects environmental regulation, public safety, local security, and many other areas of governance.
Religious Freedom Must Be Protected Equally
Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
That freedom belongs equally to Christians, Muslims, and adherents of other faiths.
It also exists alongside other constitutional interests such as public safety, order, and the rights of fellow citizens.
The challenge for lawmakers is not choosing one constitutional value over another.
It is balancing them fairly.
If preaching inside moving buses genuinely creates safety concerns or public nuisance, lawmakers may regulate it, provided the regulation is constitutional, proportionate, and applied equally.
Likewise, if road obstruction or any comparable activity creates similar public risks, enforcement should also be impartial regardless of the religious or social identity of those involved.
Hisbah and Equal Protection Under the Law
Another issue that deserves careful constitutional reflection concerns the operation of Hisbah institutions in some northern states.
Hisbah operates under the legal frameworks of certain states and is generally intended to enforce aspects of those states’ legal systems.
However, Nigeria’s constitutional framework protects the rights of all citizens regardless of religion.
Where concerns arise that any enforcement body—whether Hisbah or another authority—may affect the constitutional rights of persons who do not subscribe to the religious basis of particular rules, those concerns should be addressed transparently and in accordance with the Constitution and judicial decisions where applicable.
The guiding principle should always be equal protection under the law.
Advice to the National Assembly
The Senate and the House of Representatives have an opportunity to strengthen—not weaken—public confidence.
As lawmakers deliberate, they should consider:
* Whether the proposed restrictions are necessary, proportionate, and constitutionally sound.
* Whether similar public-order laws across Nigeria are being enforced consistently.
* Whether federal institutions are cooperating fairly with states implementing laws enacted within their constitutional powers.
* Whether citizens across religious and regional lines perceive equal treatment under the law.
Legislation should not merely create new offences.
It should reinforce confidence that justice is impartial.
Advice to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
Mr. President, your decision on this bill will be closely watched.
Whatever decision you reach—assent, amendment, or withholding assent—many Nigerians will judge it not only by the text of the bill but by the broader message it sends about fairness.
This moment presents an opportunity to reaffirm several principles:
* That laws should be enforced consistently rather than selectively.
* That existing state laws should receive appropriate constitutional respect and lawful cooperation where required.
* That obstruction of public roads, regardless of whether it arises from religious, commercial, or other activities, should be addressed impartially under existing law.
* That federal and state institutions should work cooperatively within Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
* That every Nigerian—Christian, Muslim, or adherent of any other faith—is entitled to equal protection of the law.
A nation earns respect not by passing many laws but by applying them fairly.
The Bigger Lesson
This debate is not ultimately about buses.
It is about justice.
It is about whether Nigerians believe the law belongs equally to everyone.
The strongest governments are not those that enforce laws against the weakest.
They are those who enforce the law consistently against everyone, without fear or favour.
Selective enforcement breeds resentment.
Equal enforcement builds legitimacy.
Final Reflection
Nigeria does not need laws that appear swift against one practice while longstanding concerns elsewhere remain unresolved.
Nigeria needs institutions that inspire confidence because they apply the law with consistency, transparency, and constitutional fidelity.
Justice cannot have one address.
The rule of law cannot wear one face.
If the government wishes Nigerians to respect the law, then the government must ensure that the law respects every Nigerian equally.
Only then will justice cease to be perceived as selective and become what the Constitution intends it to be: impartial, principled, and worthy of public trust.
Leave a comment