Lere Olayinka, the very vocal and sometimes controversial spokesperson of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, offers a sincere and, perhaps, simplistic interpretation of who an infidel is. His position is understandable and, in no way, suggests support for religious intolerance, especially given his earlier expression of disgust when a cleric, Shaffy Adeba, attempted to construct a narrative against non-Muslims.
But many will disagree with Lere in this particular instance, especially regarding Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir’s use of the word infidel, given the feel, demeanor, and broader context of his remarks. And this is where the conversation must move beyond the semantics of a word.
Whether infidel is technically defensible within Islamic theological literature is not the central issue. The real question is whether a senior religious leader, addressing a politically mobilised audience in a multi-religious country, should deploy such terminology while advancing a narrative of Muslim numerical and political superiority over fellow Nigerian citizens. In my view, the answer is an emphatic no.
Jingir has also made his political position sufficiently clear. In February 2026, he openly reaffirmed his support for the Tinubu-Shettima Muslim-Muslim ticket for 2027, saying that JIBWIS had voted for the ticket in 2023 and warning that changing the arrangement could cost the President clerical support. He went as far as describing the 2023 support as a promise made ‘for the sake of Allah.’ There is, therefore, nothing accidental about the religious framing of his politics.
He is entitled to support President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima. He is entitled to advocate a Muslim-Muslim ticket. He is entitled to mobilise Muslims to vote according to whatever political considerations they deem appropriate. But he is not entitled to convert that political preference into a doctrine of religious superiority. That is where the red line must be drawn.
Nigeria is a country of Muslims, Christians, adherents of traditional religions and citizens who may not subscribe to any organised religion. More importantly, the Nigerian Constitution does not establish Islam or Christianity as the religion of the Nigerian state. So, while Nigeria is often loosely described as a secular country, the more precise constitutional description is that Nigeria is a non-confessional state: the state has no official religion and is constitutionally obligated to treat citizens of different faiths equally. That distinction is important.
The Nigerian President is not the President of Muslims. Neither is he the President of Christians. He is President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The same principle applies to every public institution.
This is perhaps, the most disturbing aspect of the Jingir narrative. On what empirical basis is anyone declaring that Muslims constitute an overwhelming or decisive majority of Nigeria and, therefore, have a superior political entitlement? There is no current national census figure establishing the religious composition of Nigeria.
Democracy is not simply the tyranny of numbers. That is the fundamental misunderstanding embedded in religious majoritarianism. Democracy is majority rule constrained by constitutional rights, minority protection, equality before the law and respect for the dignity of every citizen. If numerical strength becomes a licence for religious dominance, then democracy has already begun to die.
The tragedy is that Nigeria has enough problems without adding religious ownership to the list. We have insecurity. We have unemployment. We have poverty. We have educational decay. We have infrastructure deficits. We have an enormous productivity crisis. We have corruption. We have institutional weaknesses. We have a frighteningly large youth population that needs opportunity, not sermons about religious supremacy.
Yet some of our political and religious elite continue to drag the country backwards into the primitive arithmetic of ‘our people’ versus ‘their people.’ This is not how nations are built. And where public utterances have the potential to incite hostility, deepen religious division or threaten public order, the authorities have a legitimate responsibility to take note.
The current political trajectory makes it imperative that Nigerians of all faiths rise above this dangerous narrative. Muslims must reject any attempt to make Jingir’s rhetoric representative of Islam. Christians must resist the temptation to respond with an equally inflammatory Christian counter-narrative. Political leaders must stop treating religious leaders as electoral mobilisation machines. And the media must interrogate such statements without becoming instruments of religious propaganda.
No cleric, politician or sectional interest should be allowed to turn religious arithmetic into a licence for political domination. The task before Nigerians now is not to count who has more Muslims or Christians. It is to build a country in which it no longer matters who has more.
That is the essence of democracy. That is the meaning of patriotism. And that is the Nigeria that can prosper.