₦airaland Forum

The President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria PFN, Bishop Wale Oke, has slammed members of the Nigerian Senate for passing a law penalizing anyone who preaches in commercial buses

Recall that two weeks ago, the Senate passed the redrafted Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026, introducing heavy penalties for various road and transit-related infractions. Among the newly established rules is a N50,000 penalty targeting individuals who trade, hawk, or preach to passengers inside commercial buses.

The bill currently awaits the assent of President Tinubu.

While preaching in his church, the cleric said the Federal government should be ready to convert Stadiums into prisons because he and many Christians will readily break the law.

‘’Make all the stadiums in Nigeria to become a prison; if you want to enforce that law, we are coming. We will break that law. Our master told us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. You sit somewhere there, and you are saying we shouldn't preach in buses.

We will preach in buses! We will preach everywhere! Because you are ev!l, making ev!l decrees. We will rather obey God than man
"You don't go after k!llers, you are not going after those behe@ding, you are not going after r@pist, you are not going after k!dnappers. You are not going after bandits who are unlawfully carrying arms. You are not going after them. You are going after us who are preaching the message of peace that changes the lives of people. We wouldn't listen to you!' You are not God! Who are you? You are there for a tenure, and God will wipe all of you out!
Those promoting that law, God will cut them off. We will rain curses upon you and your family unless you repent''

Breaker001:
The President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria PFN, Bishop Wale Oke, has slammed members of the Nigerian Senate for passing a law penalizing anyone who preaches in commercial buses

Recall that two weeks ago, the Senate passed the redrafted Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026, introducing heavy penalties for various road and transit-related infractions. Among the newly established rules is a N50,000 penalty targeting individuals who trade, hawk, or preach to passengers inside commercial buses.

The bill currently awaits the assent of President Tinubu.

While preaching in his church, the cleric said the Federal government should be ready to convert Stadiums into prisons because he and many Christians will readily break the law.

‘’Make all the stadiums in Nigeria to become a prison; if you want to enforce that law, we are coming. We will break that law. Our master told us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. You sit somewhere there, and you are saying we shouldn't preach in buses.

We will preach in buses! We will preach everywhere! Because you are ev!l, making ev!l decrees. We will rather obey God than man
"You don't go after k!llers, you are not going after those behe@ding, you are not going after r@pist, you are not going after k!dnappers. You are not going after bandits who are unlawfully carrying arms. You are not going after them. You are going after us who are preaching the message of peace that changes the lives of people. We wouldn't listen to you!' You are not God! Who are you? You are there for a tenure, and God will wipe all of you out!
Those promoting that law, God will cut them off. We will rain curses upon you and your family unless you repent''

Lol
They are seriously afraid.
Regarding what's happening around the world now.
I just thank God for internet.
If you know fine,if not OYO

I been think say them no go talk..

Blike say na now them understand the bill

The head slamers can't disturb people with their speakers in the morning. If you talk they will kill you,and the leaders will clap for them.

Breaker001:
The President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria PFN, Bishop Wale Oke, has slammed members of the Nigerian Senate for passing a law penalizing anyone who preaches in commercial buses

Recall that two weeks ago, the Senate passed the redrafted Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026, introducing heavy penalties for various road and transit-related infractions. Among the newly established rules is a N50,000 penalty targeting individuals who trade, hawk, or preach to passengers inside commercial buses.

The bill currently awaits the assent of President Tinubu.

While preaching in his church, the cleric said the Federal government should be ready to convert Stadiums into prisons because he and many Christians will readily break the law.

‘’Make all the stadiums in Nigeria to become a prison; if you want to enforce that law, we are coming. We will break that law. Our master told us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. You sit somewhere there, and you are saying we shouldn't preach in buses.

We will preach in buses! We will preach everywhere! Because you are ev!l, making ev!l decrees. We will rather obey God than man
"You don't go after k!llers, you are not going after those behe@ding, you are not going after r@pist, you are not going after k!dnappers. You are not going after bandits who are unlawfully carrying arms. You are not going after them. You are going after us who are preaching the message of peace that changes the lives of people. We wouldn't listen to you!' You are not God! Who are you? You are there for a tenure, and God will wipe all of you out!
Those promoting that law, God will cut them off. We will rain curses upon you and your family unless you repent''

Good talk! Very good talk. Civil disobedience will follow!

I think the APC should be careful about religious sensitivity especially now that things don't look like what they may mean. It's election period, choose your battles.

If you are ready to eat watery beans you can pass your boundary then

Akpabio is fool to accept th at a supposedly xtian . Despite killings na preaching concern una

Misplaced priority at its peak.
Where insecurities are eating deep into fabric of our various societies, Nigeria Senate under Akpabio is chasing shadow. This law has no relevance

That Akwa armed robber get work?

He's just there to loot and laugh. These guys are taking Christians for a ride, if we talk you'd see their script writers and essayists on every platform doing arithmetic.

When did preaching on a bus become a problem?

As a Nigerian, I believe such a law is necessary. However, as a Christian, I think it is unnecessary, especially considering the timing. If it had been enacted in the early 2000s, it probably would not have generated much controversy. But given how religiously and ethnically suspicious we have become of one another at this point in our national history, I believe the law should either be suspended or abandoned.
That said, I must point out that most of the people who "preach" in buses and parks are not genuine preachers but disguised beggars. I remember that between 2007 and 2018, whenever I boarded a bus from Lugbe Federal Housing Junction to the Federal Secretariat, a journey of about 20 to 35 minutes, they would preach for only a few minutes and spend the rest of the trip begging, employing all manner of tactics to solicit money from passengers.

The government has to come out with specifics and balance on this. It's not enough to remind us that after God na government, or that it started in 1820. Those are not the issues.
The issue is why this particular one is grabbing attention and enforcement for safety now. Where's enforcement on cows on the road? Enforcement on music and advertising jingles? Or those decibels don't distract drivers too? Is there any research that shows that road accidents are a result of bus preaching?
Any other religion that wants to preach can go ahead, nobody stopped them. You have to be a hypocrite or ignorant not to know that only Christianity has the commission on evangelism. Christians call it the Great Commission. No other god remembered to instruct followers to do same, but they are welcome to. We've never felt odd hearing others pray in buses, or all kinds of funny drugs and charms peddled and advertised.

Nobody go arrest anybody..

Breaker001:
The President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria PFN, Bishop Wale Oke, has slammed members of the Nigerian Senate for passing a law penalizing anyone who preaches in commercial buses

Recall that two weeks ago, the Senate passed the redrafted Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026, introducing heavy penalties for various road and transit-related infractions. Among the newly established rules is a N50,000 penalty targeting individuals who trade, hawk, or preach to passengers inside commercial buses.

The bill currently awaits the assent of President Tinubu.

While preaching in his church, the cleric said the Federal government should be ready to convert Stadiums into prisons because he and many Christians will readily break the law.

‘’Make all the stadiums in Nigeria to become a prison; if you want to enforce that law, we are coming. We will break that law. Our master told us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. You sit somewhere there, and you are saying we shouldn't preach in buses.

We will preach in buses! We will preach everywhere! Because you are ev!l, making ev!l decrees. We will rather obey God than man
"You don't go after k!llers, you are not going after those behe@ding, you are not going after r@pist, you are not going after k!dnappers. You are not going after bandits who are unlawfully carrying arms. You are not going after them. You are going after us who are preaching the message of peace that changes the lives of people. We wouldn't listen to you!' You are not God! Who are you? You are there for a tenure, and God will wipe all of you out!
Those promoting that law, God will cut them off. We will rain curses upon you and your family unless you repent''

Bus Preaching Bill: How Religion Is Being Weaponised to Attack Tinubu Over a Law He Did Not Write. by CharlesCNG.

Bishop Wale Oke is right to question any law that threatens peaceful preaching in commercial buses with a ₦50,000 fine. The provision raises legitimate concerns about religious freedom, proportionality, selective enforcement and possible abuse by security officials.

But his anger is being directed at the wrong person.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency.

It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. They were consolidated, passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected the bill. Until presidential assent, it remains a National Assembly bill—not “Tinubu’s law.”

The Senate has also clarified that preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible, but it destroys the narrative that Tinubu suddenly created an anti-Christian law in 2026.

Christian organisations are entitled to demand that the President withhold assent. That is the proper democratic response. However,

Incidentally , PFN, CAN or Bishop Wale Oke formally challenged this clause while the bill moved through the legislature.

The National Assembly must still explain why such a controversial restriction was retained without broader consultation involving churches, mosques, transport unions, passengers and civil-liberty groups.

A blanket ban is excessive. The law should target actual distraction, obstruction, harassment and unsafe trading—not every form of preaching or prayer. Its present wording could encourage extortion and arbitrary arrests.

But there is no evidence that the bill is a Muslim conspiracy against Christians. The provision applies broadly, and the religious affiliations of the sponsors are not established in the legislative record.

Bishop Oke has identified a legitimate constitutional concern. But threatening curses and portraying President Tinubu as the author of a bill he has neither signed nor initiated risks turning a serious legal debate into political theatre through the weaponisation of religion.

One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy of framing every contentious issue as evidence of an anti-Christian agenda, as many argued happened during the 2023 campaign.

If the concern is genuinely about protecting religious freedom rather than scoring political points, then the obvious question is: why don't CAN and the PFN simply seek an audience with President Tinubu, present their constitutional objections and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill to the National Assembly for amendment?

That is how constitutional democracy works.
Weaponising religion before the President has even acted only creates unnecessary division where constructive engagement could still resolve the issue.

For now, the bishop is cursing the wrong office.
As the Bible reminds us in[b] Proverbs 26:2[/b], "A curse without cause shall not alight."
If President Tinubu has neither initiated nor signed the bill, then directing curses at him is both misplaced and premature.

And to those who may be tempted to turn the pulpit of the Lord into another political rostrum for the 2027 elections, they should remember that the Church's greatest moral authority lies in proclaiming truth without partisanship.
The pulpit was established to preach Christ and righteousness—not to become an extension of the campaign platform of any politician or political party.

BigYash:
I been think say them no go talk..

Blike say na now them understand the bill

The head slamers can't disturb people with their speakers in the morning. If you talk they will kill you,and the leaders will clap for them.

It is disgusting that you people want to weaponise religion in your desperation for 2027 campaign for blueprintless peter.
So What are the facts.
The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency. It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. The bills were consolidated, passed by the House, reconsidered after a technical review and subsequently transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.
Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele presented it because that is part of his institutional responsibility for concurrence bills, not because he personally invented the offending clause.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected it. Until presidential assent, it is a bill passed by the legislature—not “Tinubu’s law.”
The Law is not new.The Senate says preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 Road Traffic Regulations, with the current bill mainly reorganising the provision and increasing the penalties rather than creating a new offence.

This is a road-safety amendment containing dozens of offences, including reckless driving, intoxicated driving, traffic-light violations, speeding and refusal to cooperate with breath testing. The preaching clause is controversial, but it is not the bill’s only purpose.

zoedew:
Good talk! Very good talk. Civil disobedience will follow!

Civil disobedience over what exactly? Have you even bothered to get the facts right?

Tinubu did not initiate the bill, has not signed it, and has not yet decided whether to assent or return it. The provision on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles already existed under earlier road-traffic laws; the current amendment mainly reorganises it and increases the penalties.

There are valid concerns about religious freedom, overbroad wording and possible abuse, but the proper response is to engage the National Assembly and urge the President to withhold assent—not threaten civil disobedience over a law that is not yet in force and falsely present it as Tinubu’s personal decree.

Get the facts first. Protest second.

SixSeven:
I think the APC should be careful about religious sensitivity especially now that things don't look like what they may mean. It's election period, choose your battles.

You've got it backwards.

This is not APC playing religious politics; it's some PULPIT politicians and commentators trying to weaponise religion over a bill President Tinubu neither initiated nor has yet signed.

There are Christians and Muslims in the National Assembly. The bill WAS INITIATED AND PASSED through both chambers as legislation—not as a religious decree from the Presidency.

Here's the question nobody seems eager to answer: Where were CAN and the PFN while this bill was going through PUBLIC HEARING in the House and Senate?

If the provision was such an existential threat to religious freedom, why wasn't there sustained engagement during the legislative process?

Instead, some people waited until the bill reached the President's desk before trying to frame it as "Tinubu versus Christians."

If CAN and the PFN genuinely believe the clause is unconstitutional, the mature response is simple: seek an audience with the President, present their objections and urge him to[b] withhold assent [/b]or return the bill for amendment.

That is constitutional engagement.

Trying to manufacture another 2023-style religious controversy before the President has even acted is politics—not principle.

fortunez1:
Akpabio is fool to accept th at a supposedly xtian . Despite killings na preaching concern una

Please do Not Manufacture a Religious Conspiracy where there is none.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency. It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida.

The bills were consolidated, passed by the WHOLE House, reconsidered after a technical review and subsequently transmitted to the Senate for concurrence. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele presented it because that is part of his institutional responsibility for concurrence bills, not because he personally invented the offending clause.

Secondly , this is a road-safety amendment containing dozens of offences, including reckless driving, intoxicated driving, traffic-light violations, speeding and refusal to cooperate with breath testing.
The preaching clause is controversial, but it is not the bill’s only purpose.

Is the Provision Defensible?

The road-safety argument is not entirely ridiculous. Loud preaching, aggressive trading or movement inside a crowded bus can distract a driver, disturb passengers and create conflict. Passengers who paid for transportation did not necessarily consent to becoming a captive congregation or marketplace.

But a blanket criminal offence is a blunt instrument.

Why should a quiet, consensual prayer attract the same sanction as someone obstructing the aisle, shouting beside the driver or physically harassing passengers? Why not regulate actual distraction, obstruction, intimidation and refusal to stop after passengers object?
This are valid points. introducing religion is nothing but desperation by the pulpit politicians towards 2027. Period.

Qadaffi2idiamin:
That Akwa armed robber get work?

He's just there to loot and laugh. These guys are taking Christians for a ride, if we talk you'd see their script writers and essayists on every platform doing arithmetic.

When did preaching on a bus become a problem?

Please get your facts right. The preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The law already existed since 2007 and 2012. Tinubu was not president then. infact, the President then is a christian.
The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible,.

Tinubu did not suddenly create an anti-Christian law in 2026.
IT IS A SPONSORED LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!

CharlesCNG:
Civil disobedience over what exactly? Have you even bothered to get the facts right?

Tinubu did not initiate the bill, has not signed it, and has not yet decided whether to assent or return it. The provision on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles already existed under earlier road-traffic laws; the current amendment mainly reorganises it and increases the penalties.

There are valid concerns about religious freedom, overbroad wording and possible abuse, but the proper response is to engage the National Assembly and urge the President to withhold assent—not threaten civil disobedience over a law that is not yet in force and falsely present it as Tinubu’s personal decree.

Get the facts first. Protest second.

Am not, in this matter, focused on Tinubu or any individual for that matter. While I know he won't sign it and that it is one of the ploys to gain electoral advantage no lover of fundamental human rights will stand idly by in the face of such enactment.

What is the meaning of PFN,upon all the malfesances going on in the country,so this one touches PFN,face saving at least people should see a pentecostal wing of something is still in existence😆😆😆.Only God will judge you people.

Let’s a good argument for Bishop Oke's influence be presented. A solid case for them leadership, surely.

zoedew:
Am not, in this matter, focused on Tinubu or any individual for that matter. While I know he won't sign it and that it is one of the ploys to gain electoral advantage no lover of fundamental human rights will stand idly by in the face of such enactment.

What I find most worrying is that the PFN and CAN appear not to have carried out basic due diligence before rushing out such an irresponsible and politically loaded Press release.

Their position rested on several false assumptions. First, this is not a newly invented anti-Christian law:
The clause on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles has existed in the FRSC legal framework for years. What the National Assembly principally did was reorganise the provision and increase the penalty.

The preaching clause is not a separate piece of legislation aimed specifically at Christians; it is only one provision in a broader road-safety amendment covering numerous traffic offences.

None of this means the clause should be supported. I believe it is overbroad, unnecessary and open to abuse. But opposing a bad provision does not justify misrepresenting its origin, presenting it as Tinubu’s personal law, or manufacturing a religious emergency before the President has even acted.

The language is inciting and so irresponsible.

When major Christian bodies abandon verification, ignore the legislative history and immediately frame the matter as an attack on Christianity, and start raining curses then something is wrong.

it inevitably raises questions about motive. One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy in which religion is weaponised to create fear, deepen division and target President Tinubu ahead of 2027.

CharlesCNG:
What I find most worrying is that the PFN and CAN appear not to have carried out basic due diligence before rushing out such an irresponsible and politically loaded Press release.

Their position rested on several false assumptions. First, this is not a newly invented anti-Christian law:
The clause on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles has existed in the FRSC legal framework for years. What the National Assembly principally did was reorganise the provision and increase the penalty.

The preaching clause is not a separate piece of legislation aimed specifically at Christians; it is only one provision in a broader road-safety amendment covering numerous traffic offences.

None of this means the clause should be supported. I believe it is overbroad, unnecessary and open to abuse. But opposing a bad provision does not justify misrepresenting its origin, presenting it as Tinubu’s personal law, or manufacturing a religious emergency before the President has even acted.

The language is inciting and so irresponsible.

When major Christian bodies abandon verification, ignore the legislative history and immediately frame the matter as an attack on Christianity, and start raining curses then something is wrong.

it inevitably raises questions about motive. One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy in which religion is weaponised to create fear, deepen division and target President Tinubu ahead of 2027.

While your observations are valid it is also important to contextualize the Press Release in the light of proven Christian Genocide in Nigeria especially the North of the country. Vigilance is the first law of safety!!

zoedew:
While your observations are valid it is also important to contextualize the Press Release in the light of proven Christian Genocide in Nigeria especially the North of the country. Vigilance is the first law of safety!!

Please go back and read the press release again.

No one disputes that Christians in parts of Nigeria have suffered horrific attacks or that church leaders have every right—even a duty—to remain vigilant. But vigilance is not a licence to abandon fairness, due diligence or truth.

CAN and the PFN are not Donald Trump. Their standard should not be outrage first, investigate later." Before issuing such a strongly worded statement, they owed the President—and indeed the Nigerian public—the courtesy of getting the facts right.

The language of the press release was disappointing.
It repeatedly portrayed the proposal as "Tinubu's law," even though the preaching provision was not a new law. That clause had already existed in the FRSC legal framework for years; what the National Assembly principally changed was the penalty.

More importantly, President Tinubu has not even assented to the bill. Until he does, it remains a bill passed by the legislature.

Instead of immediately escalating the matter into a national religious controversy, why didn't CAN and the PFN first seek an audience with the President, present their constitutional concerns and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill for amendment?

That would have been responsible leadership. What they did is NOT responsible leadership at all.

The press release, unfortunately, gave the impression that confrontation was preferred to engagement and that a pending legislative process was being presented as a settled anti-Christian policy. That is neither fair to the President nor helpful to national cohesion.

Church leaders should always speak truth to power. But they must also speak truth ABOUT power.
Facts should precede outrage.

The pulpit is too sacred to become another political campaign platform. Our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13), as He drove out those who had turned the temple into something else.

The Church's greatest moral authority comes from proclaiming truth with integrity, not from allowing the altar to become another political rostrum in the run-up to an election.

The Church must never surrender its prophetic voice. But neither should it allow that voice to be weakened by avoidable factual errors or rhetoric that unnecessarily deepens political and religious divisions.

CharlesCNG:
You've got it backwards.

This is not APC playing religious politics; it's some PULPIT politicians and commentators trying to weaponise religion over a bill President Tinubu neither initiated nor has yet signed.

There are Christians and Muslims in the National Assembly. The bill WAS INITIATED AND PASSED through both chambers as legislation—not as a religious decree from the Presidency.

Here's the question nobody seems eager to answer: Where were CAN and the PFN while this bill was going through PUBLIC HEARING in the House and Senate?

If the provision was such an existential threat to religious freedom, why wasn't there sustained engagement during the legislative process?

Instead, some people waited until the bill reached the President's desk before trying to frame it as "Tinubu versus Christians."

If CAN and the PFN genuinely believe the clause is unconstitutional, the mature response is simple: seek an audience with the President, present their objections and urge him to[b] withhold assent [/b]or return the bill for amendment.

That is constitutional engagement.

Trying to manufacture another 2023-style religious controversy before the President has even acted is politics—not principle.

This is Nigeria. Whether it is Tinubu or Fashola, the office of the President will always be there. When Jonathan wanted to do FRCN thing with the churches, what happened? That's Nigeria for you.

Lols 😂
And after this long "sermon", you didn't sign your name and your "portfolio in government" 😂

CharlesCNG:
Bus Preaching Bill: How Religion Is Being Weaponised to Attack Tinubu Over a Law He Did Not Write. by CharlesCNG.

Bishop Wale Oke is right to question any law that threatens peaceful preaching in commercial buses with a ₦50,000 fine. The provision raises legitimate concerns about religious freedom, proportionality, selective enforcement and possible abuse by security officials.

But his anger is being directed at the wrong person.

The controversial Federal Road Safety Commission Amendment Bill did not originate from President Tinubu or the Presidency.

It began in the House of Representatives as two bills—HB 1401, sponsored by Olaide Lateef Muhammed, and HB 1604, sponsored by Abiodun Derin Adesida. They were consolidated, passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

Tinubu has neither signed nor rejected the bill. Until presidential assent, it remains a National Assembly bill—not “Tinubu’s law.”

The Senate has also clarified that preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible, but it destroys the narrative that Tinubu suddenly created an anti-Christian law in 2026.

Christian organisations are entitled to demand that the President withhold assent. That is the proper democratic response. However,

Incidentally , PFN, CAN or Bishop Wale Oke formally challenged this clause while the bill moved through the legislature.

The National Assembly must still explain why such a controversial restriction was retained without broader consultation involving churches, mosques, transport unions, passengers and civil-liberty groups.

A blanket ban is excessive. The law should target actual distraction, obstruction, harassment and unsafe trading—not every form of preaching or prayer. Its present wording could encourage extortion and arbitrary arrests.

But there is no evidence that the bill is a Muslim conspiracy against Christians. The provision applies broadly, and the religious affiliations of the sponsors are not established in the legislative record.

Bishop Oke has identified a legitimate constitutional concern. But threatening curses and portraying President Tinubu as the author of a bill he has neither signed nor initiated risks turning a serious legal debate into political theatre through the weaponisation of religion.

One can only hope this is not the beginning of another election-season strategy of framing every contentious issue as evidence of an anti-Christian agenda, as many argued happened during the 2023 campaign.

If the concern is genuinely about protecting religious freedom rather than scoring political points, then the obvious question is: why don't CAN and the PFN simply seek an audience with President Tinubu, present their constitutional objections and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill to the National Assembly for amendment?

That is how constitutional democracy works.
Weaponising religion before the President has even acted only creates unnecessary division where constructive engagement could still resolve the issue.

For now, the bishop is cursing the wrong office.
As the Bible reminds us in[b] Proverbs 26:2[/b], "A curse without cause shall not alight."
If President Tinubu has neither initiated nor signed the bill, then directing curses at him is both misplaced and premature.

And to those who may be tempted to turn the pulpit of the Lord into another political rostrum for the 2027 elections, they should remember that the Church's greatest moral authority lies in proclaiming truth without partisanship.
The pulpit was established to preach Christ and righteousness—not to become an extension of the campaign platform of any politician or political party.

Wale oke, you stamped down on the Muslim Muslim ticket. I suppose you never thought it would have consequences.

CharlesCNG:
Please go back and read the press release again.

No one disputes that Christians in parts of Nigeria have suffered horrific attacks or that church leaders have every right—even a duty—to remain vigilant. But vigilance is not a licence to abandon fairness, due diligence or truth.

CAN and the PFN are not Donald Trump. Their standard should not be outrage first, investigate later." Before issuing such a strongly worded statement, they owed the President—and indeed the Nigerian public—the courtesy of getting the facts right.

The language of the press release was disappointing.
It repeatedly portrayed the proposal as "Tinubu's law," even though the preaching provision was not a new law. That clause had already existed in the FRSC legal framework for years; what the National Assembly principally changed was the penalty.

More importantly, President Tinubu has not even assented to the bill. Until he does, it remains a bill passed by the legislature.

Instead of immediately escalating the matter into a national religious controversy, why didn't CAN and the PFN first seek an audience with the President, present their constitutional concerns and urge him to withhold assent or return the bill for amendment?

That would have been responsible leadership. What they did is NOT responsible leadership at all.

The press release, unfortunately, gave the impression that confrontation was preferred to engagement and that a pending legislative process was being presented as a settled anti-Christian policy. That is neither fair to the President nor helpful to national cohesion.

Church leaders should always speak truth to power. But they must also speak truth ABOUT power.
Facts should precede outrage.

The pulpit is too sacred to become another political campaign platform. Our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matthew 21:13), as He drove out those who had turned the temple into something else.

The Church's greatest moral authority comes from proclaiming truth with integrity, not from allowing the altar to become another political rostrum in the run-up to an election.

The Church must never surrender its prophetic voice. But neither should it allow that voice to be weakened by avoidable factual errors or rhetoric that unnecessarily deepens political and religious divisions.

I have not disagreed with all you posited except that you found same irresponsible. Again, I maintain that when the press release is set against the background of the recent experience of the church an understanding of its tone will dawn on the reader. I am not a partisan politician and am not looking at the issue from the perspective of the political.

CharlesCNG:
Please get your facts right. The preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles were already listed as offences under the 2007 FRSC Act and the 2012 National Road Traffic Regulations.

The law already existed since 2007 and 2012. Tinubu was not president then. infact, the President then is a christian.
The current amendment largely reorganises the provision and increases penalties. That does not make the clause sensible,.

Tinubu did not suddenly create an anti-Christian law in 2026.
IT IS A SPONSORED LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!

The president can go ahead and give ascent to that bill.

It's a Muslim Muslim ticket he continues to use to divide this nation yet he wants a united Nigeria where Christians are slaughtered and Christian communities are raided and razed without consequences and when a Christian walks in and tell him the truth in front of very sick people who guard him from accessing the truth he becomes agitated.

According to him "everything is fair in politic." What's the difference between a president that sees human lives and poverty as political tools and a terrorist that kills and kidnap for fun and money?

They probably gave you one job, rebuttal of every single truth that turns up where descent minds pour out facts and poison that notion with falsehood with facts dug up from the grave of dead laws.

Even the Roman empire, Ottoman empire, Egyptian empire, more recently, the Japanese empire all fell because the rulers and courters elevated themselves as gods and use tools of anti-humanity against their own kind coupled with all manner of wickedness and dark practices. Your Lagos landlord's planned empire will still fall and the consequences will be worse than that of Mushood Abiola.

This too, shall pass!

If them born any werey well, make he preach nonsense religion to me on the street.