When the Freedom to Believe Becomes a Crime, Justice Must Speak
By Odesola JF., PhD
There are moments in the life of a nation when silence ceases to be an expression of peace and becomes an abandonment of principle. There are moments when citizens must ask uncomfortable questions, not because they hate their country, but because they love it enough to demand that it live up to its promises.
Nigeria is facing one of those moments.
If the reported case of Liyatu Samuel Dawa, a Christian mother from the Gwoza area of Borno State, is accurately presented, then Nigerians have serious questions to ask about religious freedom, equality before the law, the protection of fundamental rights, and the meaning of national unity.
According to the account provided, Dawa was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for allegedly sharing her Christian faith with an adult Muslim woman who subsequently chose to become a Christian. The woman reportedly testified that she acted voluntarily and that nobody forced, deceived, or induced her to change her religion. The prosecution was said to have relied on Section 210 of the Penal Code Laws of Borno State, a provision described in the account as relating to the deprivation of a parent of lawful custody of a child.
These are grave allegations. The precise court record, the full charge, the judgment, and the applicable law must be independently verified before every detail can be treated as established fact. But the questions raised by this report are too important to dismiss.
Can a Nigerian citizen be imprisoned for peacefully sharing her faith with another consenting adult? Can a person be punished for another adult’s voluntary religious decision? And can we honestly speak of one Nigeria if fundamental freedoms are applied differently depending on a citizen’s religion?
These are not merely Christian questions. They are Nigerian questions.
- One Nigeria: A Promise We Must Take Seriously
The expression One Nigeria is more than a political slogan. It is a promise that every citizen, regardless of religion, ethnicity, language, gender, or geographical location, belongs to the same country and deserves equal protection under the law.
A Christian in Borno is as much a Nigerian as a Muslim in Maiduguri. A Muslim in Lagos is as much a Nigerian as a Christian in Enugu. A traditional worshipper in Osun, a Catholic in Benue, a Pentecostal believer in Abuja, and a Muslim in Kano should all be able to look to the Constitution for protection.
That is what citizenship means.
However, when reports emerge that a citizen has received a severe prison sentence for conduct that may fall within the exercise of religious freedom, the nation must not respond with indifference. The appropriate response is to examine the facts, scrutinise the law, and ensure that justice has been done.
We cannot preach national unity while tolerating circumstances that make some citizens feel that their rights are less secure than those of others.
Unity does not mean that everyone must practise the same religion. It means that people of different religions can live together under a common constitutional order.
A country cannot build genuine unity by asking one section of its population to endure injustice quietly for the sake of peace. Peace without justice is fragile, and unity without equal rights is an empty promise.
- Is Sharing One’s Faith a Crime?
Christianity places considerable emphasis on evangelism. Jesus Christ instructed His followers to teach and make disciples among the nations (Matthew 28:19–20). The apostle Peter also admonished believers to be ready to explain the reason for their hope, doing so with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15).
Yet the Christian understanding of evangelism does not justify coercion, intimidation, fraud, or the abuse of vulnerable people. Genuine Christian witness must respect the dignity and freedom of the person listening.
The same principle should apply to every religion.
Muslims should be free to explain Islam peacefully. Christians should be free to explain Christianity peacefully. People of other faiths should be able to discuss their convictions, and those who embrace no religion should be free to express that position within the law.
Religious freedom means more than the right to worship privately. It includes the freedom to hold, change, adopt, and communicate religious beliefs, subject to lawful and constitutionally permissible limitations.
Section 38 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, as amended, protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief and the freedom to manifest that religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also recognises freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion.
These protections are not decorations in legal documents. They exist to safeguard the human conscience against arbitrary interference.
If an adult freely chooses to change religion, the state should not assume that the decision must have resulted from deception or wrongdoing merely because another person discussed a different faith with them.
If there is evidence of fraud, threats, unlawful inducement, or another genuine offence, the authorities should investigate that conduct fairly. But the existence of a religious conversion, by itself, cannot substitute for proof of a crime.
The freedom to persuade is not the power to compel, and the freedom to disagree is not the authority to punish.
This distinction is essential in a religiously diverse society such as Nigeria.
- The Question of Double Standards
The central issue is not whether Christians should enjoy privileges over Muslims. They should not. The question is whether Christians and Muslims enjoy equal protection under the same law.
Imagine a Muslim woman in a predominantly Christian community explaining the teachings of Islam to a Christian woman. After several conversations, the Christian woman freely decides to become a Muslim. Would the Muslim woman deserve 14 years in prison simply because the other woman changed her religion?
Imagine a Christian man explaining the Gospel to a Muslim colleague in Lagos. The colleague begins attending church and eventually converts to Christianity. Should the Christian man be arrested, charged, and imprisoned because of that decision?
Now reverse the situation. Imagine a Christian explaining Christianity to a Muslim, but this time the Muslim decides to remain a Muslim. There is no crime in peaceful religious discussion simply because the listener declines the invitation.
In each example, the relevant questions should remain the same: Was there coercion? Was there fraud? Was a law actually violated? What evidence supports the charge? Were the accused person’s rights respected? Was the punishment lawful and proportionate?
The identity of the person sharing the faith should not determine the answer.
This is the test of equal justice.
If the law punishes peaceful Christian evangelism while allowing comparable peaceful religious advocacy by others, that would raise a serious question of discriminatory enforcement. But such a conclusion must be established through evidence, not assumption. The complete judgment and the treatment of comparable cases matter.
Nevertheless, the principle is clear: One country cannot legitimately operate with one standard of justice for one religious community and another standard for a different community.
Nigeria’s diversity is not a defect to be corrected. It is a reality to be protected. Our laws must help citizens manage that diversity fairly rather than turn religious differences into sources of fear.
- What Does Section 210 Actually Say?
One particularly troubling element of the reported case is the allegation that Section 210 of the Penal Code Laws of Borno State was used to prosecute Dawa, even though the provision was described as concerning the deprivation of a parent of lawful custody of a child.
If the charge was indeed based on a provision that does not cover the alleged conduct, the legal implications would be serious.
However, we must be careful. The complete charge sheet, the precise statutory wording, the prosecution’s arguments, and the court’s judgment have not been supplied here. It would therefore be premature to declare definitively that the court misapplied the law without examining those documents.
That caution does not diminish the need for accountability. It strengthens it.
The principle of legality requires that criminal offences and penalties be grounded in law. Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s Constitution provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in written law.
A court must identify the offence, establish the relevant legal elements, evaluate the evidence, and apply the correct law. A conviction cannot properly rest on religious disapproval or public discomfort with an individual’s conversion.
If the law was wrongly interpreted, the appropriate appellate court should have the opportunity to correct the error. If the charge was legally defective, the issue should be addressed through the judicial process.
No one should be imprisoned because a judge, prosecutor, religious leader, or section of the public dislikes the religious choice of another adult.
The rule of law means that government officials and judicial authorities are bound by the law just as citizens are. It also means that accusations must be tested against evidence and that punishments must be justified by the applicable law.
Justice is not merely about reaching a conclusion. It is about reaching a lawful conclusion through a fair process.
- The Nigerian Constitution Must Mean Something in Every State
Nigeria is a federation, and different states may have different laws within their constitutional powers. Nevertheless, state laws and their enforcement must operate within the framework of the Constitution.
Section 10 of the Constitution provides that the government of the Federation or a state shall not adopt any religion as a state religion. Section 38 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Section 42 protects against specified forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on religion.
These provisions must be read together with other applicable constitutional guarantees and legal requirements.
Their combined purpose is to ensure that Nigeria remains a country in which religious differences do not cancel citizenship.
This is particularly important in states where religious sensitivities are intense and where converts may face family pressure, social isolation, or threats. The state has a responsibility to protect people against violence and unlawful coercion, irrespective of which religious community they belong to.
If a Muslim converts to Christianity, that person’s safety should be protected. If a Christian converts to Islam, that person’s safety should also be protected. If either decides to return to a former religion or embrace no religion, the same fundamental principles apply.
Religious freedom is meaningful only when it protects decisions that other people may dislike.
Otherwise, it is not freedom. It is permission granted by the majority and withdrawn whenever the majority becomes uncomfortable.
- Other Examples: Why Equal Treatment Matters
Consider several situations that illustrate the danger of applying different standards to comparable conduct.
First, peaceful preaching in public.
A Christian preacher stands in a public space and speaks about salvation. A Muslim scholar speaks about Islam in the same space. Both act peacefully, obey applicable laws, and do not obstruct others. If one is permitted to speak while the other is prosecuted merely because of religious identity, equality before the law has been compromised.
Of course, neutral laws governing public order, noise, access, and the use of public spaces may legitimately apply to both.
Second, religious literature.
A Christian distributes Bibles to consenting adults. A Muslim distributes copies of the Qur’an to consenting adults. Neither uses threats, deception, or unlawful pressure. A fair legal system should not criminalise one activity solely because it promotes a particular religion.
Third, conversion within a family.
A husband becomes a Christian while his wife remains a Muslim. In another family, a Christian wife becomes a Muslim while her husband remains a Christian. Both situations may create emotional and practical difficulties, but disagreement within a marriage does not automatically give either spouse ownership of the other’s conscience.
The law should protect the rights and safety of both parties while addressing any genuine questions of family law through the applicable legal framework.
Fourth, religious education in schools.
Children and adults must be protected against coercion and unlawful discrimination. Parents may have legitimate interests in their children’s religious upbringing, but those interests must be considered alongside applicable constitutional protections and the rights of the children. Religious education should never become a pretext for intimidation or violence against another community.
Fifth, religious conversion in other countries.
Around the world, individuals sometimes face discrimination, threats, or criminal penalties because they adopt a different faith. Such cases remind us that freedom of conscience is not merely a Nigerian concern. It is a human-rights principle that must be defended consistently.
We cannot condemn religious persecution when it happens to Christians abroad and then remain indifferent when Muslims are persecuted elsewhere. Nor can we demand protection for Muslims while dismissing credible allegations that Christians are being denied their rights.
A principle that applies only when our own community benefits is not a principle. It is a convenience.
These examples do not establish that every case is legally identical. They demonstrate why the same standards of evidence, fairness, and constitutional protection must govern comparable situations.
- The Human Face of the Case: A Mother Behind Bars
Beyond the legal arguments is a human being.
According to the account provided, Dawa pleaded with the court that she was a mother and had not intended to cheat the woman concerned. She maintained that she had merely advised her.
We should not romanticise any accused person or assume innocence without examining the evidence. Equally, we should not allow a severe criminal sentence to pass without asking whether it is legally justified.
Fourteen years is a substantial period of human life.
For a mother, imprisonment may mean separation from her children, the loss of family support, financial hardship, and the disruption of relationships that may never be fully restored. Her children, if any are dependent on her, may bear consequences for an offence they did not commit.
This is why criminal justice must be careful, proportionate, and humane.
The seriousness of a sentence makes it even more important that the conviction rests on a properly established offence and that the penalty is authorised by law.
If the reported facts are incomplete, let the complete record be examined. If the conviction is legally sound, the public deserves a clear explanation of the law and the evidence. If it is unsound, the available legal remedies should be pursued without delay.
Neither outrage nor indifference can replace due process.
- Should Christians Keep Quiet?
My answer is no. Christians should not keep quiet about injustice. But neither should they speak recklessly, spread unverified allegations, or allow religious anger to become hatred against another community.
There is a difference between defending religious freedom and attacking Muslims as a people. The former is a moral responsibility; the latter is an injustice in its own right.
Muslim citizens are not collectively responsible for every action of a judge, prosecutor, government official, or religious extremist. Christians are equally not collectively responsible for every wrongful act committed by someone who identifies as Christian.
We must hold individuals and institutions accountable for their actions rather than condemn entire religious communities.
The Bible teaches in Proverbs 31:8–9 that we should speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and defend the rights of the vulnerable. Micah 6:8 calls for justice, mercy, and humility before God.
These teachings do not authorise hatred. They demand courage guided by righteousness.
Christian leaders, lawyers, human-rights advocates, civil-society organisations, and responsible journalists should seek the facts, examine the judgment, and call for a lawful review where appropriate.
They should insist on the protection of every Nigerian’s constitutional rights. They should engage government institutions respectfully but firmly. They should reject violence, threats, and retaliatory rhetoric.
Silence is not always neutrality. Sometimes it allows a troubling precedent to become normal.
However, speaking up must mean speaking truthfully. The credibility of the campaign for justice depends on the accuracy of the facts and the consistency of its principles.
- What Should the Authorities Do?
The appropriate response should be practical, transparent, and rooted in the rule of law.
First, the relevant judicial authorities should ensure that the complete judgment and legal basis for the reported sentence are accessible through lawful procedures.
Second, qualified Nigerian lawyers and human-rights organisations should examine the charge, the evidence, the statutory provision relied upon, and the possibility of an appeal or other lawful remedy.
Third, if the conviction or sentence is challenged, the appellate courts should determine the matter impartially and in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law.
Fourth, the Borno State Government and relevant federal institutions should reaffirm that citizens of every religion are entitled to equal protection and that peaceful religious belief and expression must not be confused with criminal conduct.
Fifth, religious leaders from Christian and Muslim communities should jointly encourage peaceful coexistence, condemn coercion, and defend the right of adults to make religious decisions freely.
Finally, the public should resist the temptation to turn a serious legal controversy into a religious war. Our objective must be justice, not revenge; constitutional protection, not domination; and national unity, not collective blame.
- One Nigeria Cannot Have Two Standards of Justice
The greatest danger to national unity is not that Nigerians worship differently. It is that they may come to believe that the law protects some people more than others.
A Christian should not fear that peacefully discussing the Gospel will result in imprisonment. A Muslim should not fear that peacefully discussing Islam will result in imprisonment. Both should understand that freedom comes with responsibilities, including respect for the rights of others and obedience to legitimate laws.
The state must distinguish between peaceful persuasion and coercion, between genuine criminal conduct and unpopular beliefs, and between the protection of public order and the suppression of religious liberty.
If the allegations in Dawa’s case are confirmed, and if her punishment was imposed merely for peacefully sharing her faith with a consenting adult, the case would raise grave constitutional and human-rights concerns deserving urgent legal scrutiny.
If the law was misapplied, the error should be corrected. If the sentence was imposed under a valid law for conduct that was lawfully established as a criminal offence, the authorities should explain the legal basis transparently and allow the judicial process to run its course.
No citizen should be denied justice because of religious identity, and no accusation should be treated as proven simply because it confirms our fears.
Nigeria deserves better than a country in which religious communities suspect that the law belongs to one another rather than to everyone.
We must build a nation in which a Muslim can remain a Muslim without intimidation, a Christian can remain a Christian without persecution, and an adult can change religious belief without becoming a target of state oppression.
That is the Nigeria worth defending.
Conclusion: Justice Must Not Be Selective
The question before us is not whether Christians should enjoy special treatment. It is whether the rights guaranteed to every Nigerian will be respected in practice.
If we say we believe in one Nigeria, then the Christian woman in Gwoza must count as much as the Muslim man in Kano. The Muslim woman in Lagos must count as much as the Christian man in Enugu. The poor must count as much as the powerful, and the vulnerable must receive the protection that the law promises.
We cannot build a united country by asking citizens to ignore credible allegations of injustice. Nor can we build one by circulating unverified claims or turning legitimate grievances into hostility against another religion.
We must investigate. We must insist on due process. We must defend freedom of conscience. We must demand accountability from public institutions. And we must do all these things without abandoning our commitment to peace.
The challenge to Christians is therefore not to remain silent, but to speak with courage, wisdom, evidence, and love. The challenge to Muslims is to stand with their fellow citizens whenever their fundamental rights are threatened. The challenge to the government and judiciary is to demonstrate, through their actions, that justice does not wear a religious identity.
One Nigeria must mean one constitutional promise, one commitment to equal citizenship, and one standard of justice for all.
Anything less will continue to weaken the very unity we claim to cherish.
And if our nation truly desires to be united, prosperous, and just, then justice must not only be proclaimed in speeches. It must be experienced by every citizen, in every state, regardless of the name of their God or the faith they profess.
The freedom of conscience belongs to all Nigerians. Justice must belong to all Nigerians. And the promise of One Nigeria must never become an excuse for selective justice.
