Fr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos, Ph.D.
Few issues have stirred public outrage in recent times as rapidly as the proposed amendment to the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) Act concerning preaching in commercial vehicles and motor parks. Across social media, radio programmes and newspaper commentaries, one recurring claim has dominated the conversation: “The Senate has banned preaching in buses.” That claim, though emotionally compelling, is legally inaccurate. Before Nigerians decide whether to applaud or condemn the proposal, it is imperative to understand exactly what is before the National Assembly. Public opinion is most valuable when it is informed by facts rather than fuelled by assumptions.
One of the greatest dangers in a democracy is not disagreement but misinformation. Once an issue is framed inaccurately, citizens begin debating entirely different subjects. The present controversy risks becoming another victim of that phenomenon. Many Nigerians believe legislators woke up one morning and decided to criminalise evangelism in commercial vehicles. The available legislative record suggests otherwise.
According to the Senate’s explanation, the provision restricting preaching or hawking in commercial vehicles did not originate with the present amendment. Similar restrictions have existed for years under the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007, and the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2012. The amendment principally seeks to retain the existing prohibition while reviewing the applicable sanctions. In other words, the current debate is less about creating an entirely new offence than about strengthening the enforcement of an existing traffic regulation.
That distinction is crucial because it changes the entire character of the conversation. The question is no longer whether Nigeria has suddenly become hostile to religion. The real questions are whether an existing road safety regulation is justified, whether the proposed penalties are proportionate, and whether constitutional rights are being sufficiently protected.
No responsible society can dismiss road safety as a trivial concern. Every year, thousands of Nigerians lose their lives in road traffic accidents. According to the Federal Road Safety Commission, road crashes continue to claim thousands of lives annually while leaving many more permanently injured. Human error remains one of the leading causes of these accidents. Driver distraction, reckless overtaking, overspeeding, fatigue and divided attention consistently feature among the major contributing factors.
It is from this perspective that supporters of the amendment defend the proposal. They argue that commercial vehicle drivers should devote undivided attention to the road. Anything capable of distracting either the driver or passengers in a manner that affects safety deserves careful regulation. Whether it is loud preaching, aggressive hawking, prolonged arguments or any activity capable of diverting concentration, the primary objective of traffic law is the preservation of human life.
Viewed from this angle, the proposed restriction is not necessarily an attack on Christianity or Islam. It is fundamentally a public safety measure. Every nation reserves the authority to regulate activities that threaten public order or safety, even where those activities may ordinarily enjoy constitutional protection.
Yet, that is only one side of the argument.
The other side raises equally serious constitutional questions.
Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It equally protects freedom of expression. These freedoms are not ornamental provisions inserted merely for decoration; they constitute some of the pillars upon which democratic society rests. Religious expression has historically occupied public spaces in Nigeria. Markets, streets, parks, campuses and public transportation have long served as places where citizens freely share their faith.
It is therefore understandable why many religious leaders have expressed concern over the proposed amendment. Their fear is not merely about preaching inside buses. Their deeper concern is that a law framed broadly may gradually expand into unnecessary restrictions on legitimate religious activities.
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has consequently urged caution, arguing that while government possesses the constitutional responsibility to protect public safety, such protection should not unnecessarily infringe upon citizens’ religious liberties. That concern deserves respectful consideration rather than dismissal.
Neither side should caricature the other.
To portray every supporter of the amendment as anti-religious is intellectually dishonest. Equally dishonest is portraying every opponent as indifferent to road safety. Both sides advance legitimate public interests. One emphasises the sanctity of life. The other defends the sanctity of liberty. Mature democracies are built not by sacrificing one value upon the altar of another but by carefully balancing both.
This is where constitutional jurisprudence becomes indispensable.
No constitutional right is entirely absolute. Freedom of movement does not authorise dangerous driving. Freedom of speech does not protect defamation. Freedom of religion does not justify human sacrifice. Likewise, government cannot invoke public safety as a convenient excuse for suppressing legitimate freedoms. Every restriction imposed by law must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, reasonableness and proportionality.
That is the conversation Nigeria ought to be having.
Instead of asking whether government should regulate activities capable of distracting commercial drivers, we should ask whether the proposed language is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that objective without criminalising harmless religious expression. Instead of asking whether preaching should occur in buses, we should ask whether enforcement can distinguish between peaceful, voluntary preaching and conduct that genuinely endangers public safety.
There is another dimension that deserves equal attention.
If road safety is truly the motivation, then consistency becomes essential. Laws should not appear to target only religious activities while ignoring other equally distracting behaviours. Commercial drivers who engage in prolonged telephone conversations, operate loud entertainment systems, browse mobile devices while driving, or permit conduct that obviously compromises safety should receive equal regulatory attention. Selective enforcement inevitably breeds suspicion.
If one may ask, which is a greater issue in Nigeria: preaching in commercial vehicles or the absolute blocking of highways and byways every Friday to observe prayer rites? If this is not addressed, the law apparently becomes one-sided. There may come a time when a law that bans evangelism in commercial vehicles could be extended to praying in commercial vehicles. The greatest sources of road accidents in Nigeria are not unknown. One of the most conspicuous is the deplorable condition of our roads. Repair the roads, remove unnecessary military checkpoints and other avoidable blockages from the highways, and accidents will be reduced.
Government must therefore communicate more effectively. One reason this controversy escalated is the failure to explain the proposed amendment before misinformation filled the vacuum. In public policy, perception often becomes reality. Citizens deserve timely explanations, transparent legislative drafting and continuous public engagement. Laws affecting millions of people should never appear mysterious.
Religious organisations also bear responsibility. Faith communities should continue to encourage evangelisation, but always in ways that respect public order, human dignity and the safety of fellow citizens. Christianity itself teaches that love of neighbour includes protecting human life. An evangelistic exercise that unnecessarily places lives at risk defeats the very moral purpose it seeks to advance.
Nigeria has no shortage of genuine national crises demanding legislative urgency. Terrorism continues to threaten communities. Kidnapping has become an organised criminal enterprise. Armed robbery, cybercrime and human trafficking continue to evolve with alarming sophistication. These realities partly explain why some citizens question whether regulating preaching in buses should command such legislative attention. Their concern is understandable. Nevertheless, addressing one category of public safety does not necessarily prevent government from addressing others.
Ultimately, this debate should not degenerate into another unnecessary confrontation between the State and the Church, or between government and religion. Such framing impoverishes public discourse. The real issue is neither Christianity nor Islam. The real issue is whether Nigeria can formulate laws that simultaneously protect life, preserve liberty and command public confidence.
That is the hallmark of constitutional democracy.
Fr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos, Ph.D
Communication Scholar, Catholic Priest and Public Affairs Commentator.
Comments are closed.