WHEN THE PULPIT MEETS POWER

As the 2027 elections draw closer, Nigerians should scrutinise the conduct of religious scholars who enter the political arena under the banner of religion. Islamic scholars have every right to speak on governance, justice, corruption, poverty, insecurity and the moral responsibilities of political leaders. The concern arises when some scholars appear to abandon those principles after allegedly receiving money, appointments, patronage or privileged access to political power. That contradiction is what many Nigerians describe as religious hypocrisy and sycophancy. Recent events have brought this tension into sharper focus. Ahead of the 2027 elections, the ruling party and its political allies have sought the support of Islamic sect leaders and non-sectarian religious figures through courtesy visits and other engagements. Such outreach is a legitimate part of political mobilisation in a democracy. However, it becomes troubling when religious influence appears to be exchanged for material benefits, political access or personal advantage, thereby compromising the moral independence expected of religious leadership. The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI) have cautioned Muslim and Christian clerics against partisanship, misinformation and hate speech ahead of the 2027 elections, while also warning politicians against compromising religious leaders. Against this background, reports of a cleric publicly praising politicians after receiving a ₦600 million donation have generated considerable public criticism. The issue is not whether a religious institution or scholar may receive a donation. Rather, the question is whether financial gifts should influence a cleric’s judgment or lead to the elevation of politicians beyond legitimate public scrutiny. Religious authority loses credibility when material generosity appears to purchase moral endorsement. Another controversy surrounding a gathering of northern Islamic scholars in Jigawa was equally instructive. Sheikh Abdurrahman Abubakar Azzamfari disputed reports that participants had collectively endorsed President Bola Tinubu’s re-election, alleging that the scholars had not been adequately consulted. Whether or not one accepts his account, the episode raises an important principle: political and religious actors should not present religious gatherings as unanimous endorsements when such unanimity has not been clearly established. Similarly, Sheikh Qaribullah Kabara, leader of the Qadiriyya sect, declared his support for President Tinubu’s administration and his 2027 re-election bid during a visit by the APC Presidential Campaign Council, led by Senator Abdul’aziz Yari, in Kano. Kabara said the sect believed that Tinubu had a “Good Mission for Nigeria.” Hilariously informed Campaign Council Yari, has openly supported this House. He is one of us, and whatever he brings forward, we have no option but to support it. He added that the sect would also begin praying for the president, with emphasis on peace, economic recovery, job creation, and an end to insecurity. Such declarations inevitably invite questions. How should claims about a government’s “Good Mission” be assessed against the lived experiences of Nigerians facing high unemployment, insecurity, banditry, kidnapping and ransom demands? These realities should form part of any honest and comprehensive assessment of government performance. Supporting a government does not require ignoring its shortcomings, just as criticising a government does not require denying its achievements. The matter becomes even more sensitive when the pulpit meets power, particularly when religious authority is used to transform political loyalty into a religious obligation. Sheikh Sani Jingir, for instance, has urged Muslims to mobilise their votes while framing the political contest, in part, through the lens of religious identity. Other Islamic leaders, however, have called on Nigerians to place competence, fairness, national development, and national unity above religious affiliation. This divergence raises a fundamental question: what happens to justice, accountability and the obligation to speak truth to power when the politician standing before the scholar is also the person providing money, platforms, appointments or access? The most hilarious is like a scholar who condemns corruption when committed by a political opponent but excuses or minimises similar conduct by an ally, turning religious leadership into political brokerage. Likewise, a cleric who demands accountability from one administration but remains silent about serious allegations involving another undermines the moral consistency expected of anyone speaking in the name of Islamic values. This criticism should not be directed at all Islamic scholars. Many religious leaders have challenged politicians, rejected partisan manipulation and warned against turning religious institutions into campaign instruments. The issue is neither Islam nor the legitimate participation of Muslims in democratic politics. The real issue is whether religious authority is being used consistently to defend truth and justice or selectively to advance political interests. It is particularly troubling to hear some scholars praise government policies and suggest that citizens’ lives have substantially improved when many Nigerians continue to report severe economic hardship and insecurity. Scholars are entitled to their political opinions. But religious authority carries an additional responsibility: the courage to speak honestly, especially when the truth is inconvenient to those in power. Abba Dukawa, Kano