₦airaland Forum

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

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.

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.

If you like go up and down till thy kingdom come Tinubu is a one term president

Tinubu himself is weaponising religion by running on muslim-muslim ticket in order to get Hausa-Fulani Muslim votes. He doesn't care how polarising the ticket will be as long as he gets those juicy Fulani votes. Ironically, his lackeys are celebrating the muslim-christian combo in Kaduna, a conservative Northwestern state without seeing the hypocrisy. They want to eat from two pots at the same time but may end up with none.

AMINDA:
Tinubu himself is weaponising religion by running on muslim-muslim ticket in order to get Hausa-Fulani Muslim votes. He doesn't care how polarising the ticket will be as long as he gets those juicy Fulani votes. Ironically, his lackeys are celebrating the muslim-christian combo in Kaduna, a conservative Northwestern state without seeing the hypocrisy. They want to eat from two pots at the same time but may end up with none.

Stop attaching religion and politics together there is no correlation between the two, most of our religions leaders are liars and bias minded.
Nigeria is a country of diverse people different people with their different religions believe.

Jagabanfromcali:
If you like go up and down till thy kingdom come Tinubu is a one term president

U can keep deceiving yourself, it is your prerogative like Bobby Brown.

Moroccoguy:
Stop attaching religion and politics together there is no correlation between the two, most of our religions leaders are liars and bias minded.
Nigeria is a country of diverse people different people with their different religions believe.

Religion itself is politics. If it weren't, Tinubu would not run on muslim-muslim ticket in 2023 and be willing to repeat it again in 2027 despite the backlash. He's desperate for the Northern muslim votes but the Muslims are no longer interested and have moved on. It's a lose-lose combination.

"Whoever comes to preach a Muslim-Muslim ticket to us again in 2027, we will bring him down from the podium."

— Sardaunan Sarkin Hausawa
Rejects another Muslim-Muslim ticket campaign. pic.twitter.com/SqawxRLhtE

— Mayor Of Calabar (@Uno_009) August 3, 2026

AMINDA:
Religion itself is politics. If it weren't, Tinubu would not run on muslim-muslim ticket in 2023 and be willing to repeat it again in 2027 despite the backlash. He's desperate for the Northern muslim votes but the Muslims are no longer interested and have moved on. It's a lose-lose combination.

"Whoever comes to preach a Muslim-Muslim ticket to us again in 2027, we will bring him down from the podium."

— Sardaunan Sarkin Hausawa
Rejects another Muslim-Muslim ticket campaign. pic.twitter.com/SqawxRLhtE

— Mayor Of Calabar (@Uno_009) August 3, 2026

We have more than 20 religions in Nigeria, Nigeria is not only for Christian and Muslim people alone.

Moroccoguy:
We have more than 20 religions in Nigeria, Nigeria is not only for Christian and Muslim people alone.

So out of over 20 religions, Tinubu chose to make only one religion dominant. Is that fair to the other religions? This is someone running on "it's the turn of the South" mantra.

AMINDA:
Tinubu himself is weaponising religion by running on muslim-muslim ticket in order to get Hausa-Fulani Muslim votes. He doesn't care how polarising the ticket will be as long as he gets those juicy Fulani votes. Ironically, his lackeys are celebrating the muslim-christian combo in Kaduna, a conservative Northwestern state without seeing the hypocrisy. They want to eat from two pots at the same time but may end up with none.

You're mixing up electoral strategy with religious weaponisation.

A Muslim-Muslim ticket is a political choice that voters are free to accept or reject at the ballot box. It is not, by itself, evidence that religion is being weaponised. If it were, then every Muslim-Christian or Christian-Christian ticket would also automatically amount to religious manipulation.
The next point is one you have raised severally before- as recent as last week if my memory serves me right.

The irony is that you keep criticising APC for fielding a Muslim-Muslim ticket while simultaneously criticising it for supporting a Muslim-Christian ticket in Kaduna. Which one exactly is the offence?

Politics is about assembling the ticket a party believes gives it the best chance of winning.

APC made its calculation in 2023, put it before Nigerians and won the election. Those who disagreed voted against it. That is democracy.


By the way, if religion was the only factor, how do you explain Tinubu winning millions of Christian votes across different parts of Nigeria, or losing Lagos—a state with a large Christian population? Elections are influenced by many factors: party structure, incumbency, personalities, local issues and campaign organisation—not religion alone.

Calling every electoral calculation "weaponising religion" only empties the phrase of meaning.

AMINDA:
So out of over 20 religions, Tinubu chose to make only one religion dominant. Is that fair to the other religions? This is someone running on "it's the turn of the South" mantra.

Kai! you catch that dàtá b0i well - well with this post 😏

He has no choice but to flee at this moment

Jagabanfromcali:
If you like go up and down till thy kingdom come Tinubu is a one term president

😂😂 Another textbook example of the Obidient "Derail-and-Dodge" strategy.

The discussion was about:

* Who actually initiated the Bus Preaching Bill.
* Whether Tinubu has signed it.
* Whether the preaching clause is new.
* Whether religion is being unnecessarily injected into the debate.

Your response?

> "Tinubu is a one-term president."

Notice how you didn't dispute a single fact in the original post.

You didn't show that Tinubu wrote the bill.

You didn't show that he has already assented to it.

You didn't show that the preaching provision was newly created in 2026.

You simply abandoned the topic and switched to campaign slogans.

If you're convinced Tinubu will serve only one term, that's your political prediction, and you're entitled to it.

But predictions are not rebuttals.

This is exactly how the Obidient Derail-and-Dodge tactic works: when the facts become uncomfortable, change the subject, throw in an election slogan and hope nobody notices that the original argument remains unanswered.

If anything I wrote is factually wrong, quote it and produce evidence.

If not, kindly leave the slogans for campaign rallies and allow the discussion to remain on the actual subject.

This AI writer again.

AMINDA:
Religion itself is politics. If it weren't, Tinubu would not run on muslim-muslim ticket in 2023 and be willing to repeat it again in 2027 despite the backlash. He's desperate for the Northern muslim votes but the Muslims are no longer interested and have moved on. It's a lose-lose combination.

"Whoever comes to preach a Muslim-Muslim ticket to us again in 2027, we will bring him down from the podium."

— Sardaunan Sarkin Hausawa
Rejects another Muslim-Muslim ticket campaign. pic.twitter.com/SqawxRLhtE

— Mayor Of Calabar (@Uno_009) August 3, 2026

You're conflating religion in politics with[b] weaponising religion[/b]. They are not the same thing.

Every democracy has identity considerations—religion, ethnicity, region, ideology, gender and geography all influence ticket selection. Choosing a Muslim-Muslim ticket was a political calculation. You may disagree with it, but that alone does not amount to weaponising religion.

Weaponising religion is something different: deliberately portraying ordinary political disagreements or legislative issues as attacks on an entire faith in order to inflame emotions and mobilise voters.

As for your claim that "Northern Muslims have moved on," how exactly do you know that? Where is the evidence?

From the political intelligence and on-the-ground assessments am priviledge to access, honestly you are seriously mistaken.
indeed, i can confidently tell you that if an election were to take place today APC is positioned to win the overwhelming majority of northern states.
In fact, as an Atiku supporter, you better warn him . What am seeing, he seems Atiku's prospects has become less optimistic than it was months ago.
Even in Kaduna, where I previously expected him to perform relatively well, I now think he could underperform humiliatingly if he does not wake up. as it stands APC will win kaduna overwhelming if an election is to take place today.

The mistake many of you analysts make is relying almost entirely on urban opinion, social media sentiment and city-based polling.
Northern elections are decided across thousands of polling units, many in rural communities whose political preferences rarely feature in online discussions. The internal Party polling that just came out was based precisely to be detailed and reflective.

Back to the muslim muslim ticket, i ask you a[i] counter question[/i] that you,AMINDA, have asked me before on the muslim-muslim ticket.

if the Muslim-Muslim ticket was such an electoral disaster, how did it produce a presidential victory in 2023?

So , my good friend,Please let's bookmark this conversation of today August 4th.

When the votes are counted in 2027, we'll see whether your prediction or mine better reflected the political reality.

AMINDA:
So out of over 20 religions, Tinubu chose to make only one religion dominant. Is that fair to the other religions? This is someone running on "it's the turn of the South" mantra.

What do you mean by "over 20 religions"? Come on, let's be serious.

In practical Nigerian politics, the debate has always been about the country's[b] two major religious communities[/b]—Christianity and Islam. The existence of many other faiths is a separate sociological discussion; it is not what the Muslim-Muslim ticket debate has been about.

More importantly, a presidential ticket does NOT make one religion "dominant" in Nigeria. Nigeria's religious landscape is determined by its people and protected by the Constitution—not by the faith of two candidates on a ballot.

If your argument were correct, then answer this: Has President Tinubu's government become exclusively Muslim? Look at the composition of his cabinet, ministers, heads of agencies and other senior appointments. There are EVEN MORE CHRISTIANS occupying many key positions in government.

The existence of a Muslim-Muslim ticket , IN THIS CASE, have turned out more Christian participation in governance.

You may argue that the ticket sent the wrong symbolic message or that you would have preferred a religiously balanced ticket. That is a perfectly legitimate political opinion.

But claiming that it made one religion "dominant" in Nigeria simply does not follow from the facts.

Let's debate what actually happened—not what sounds dramatic.

CharlesCNG:
What do you mean by "over 20 religions"? Come on, let's be serious.

In practical Nigerian politics, the debate has always been about the country's[b] two major religious communities[/b]—Christianity and Islam. The existence of many other faiths is a separate sociological discussion; it is not what the Muslim-Muslim ticket debate has been about.

More importantly, a presidential ticket does NOT make one religion "dominant" in Nigeria. Nigeria's religious landscape is determined by its people and protected by the Constitution—not by the faith of two candidates on a ballot.

If your argument were correct, then answer this: Has President Tinubu's government become exclusively Muslim? Look at the composition of his cabinet, ministers, heads of agencies and other senior appointments. There are EVEN MORE CHRISTIANS occupying many key positions in government.

The existence of a Muslim-Muslim ticket , IN THIS CASE, have turned out more Christian participation in governance.

You may argue that the ticket sent the wrong symbolic message or that you would have preferred a religiously balanced ticket. That is a perfectly legitimate political opinion.

But claiming that it made one religion "dominant" in Nigeria simply does not follow from the facts.

Let's debate what actually happened—not what sounds dramatic.

Do you really expect replies with all these your A.I generated posts? No one reads them. Please stop spamming me.

AMINDA:
Do you really expect replies with all these your A.I generated posts? No one reads them. Please stop spamming me.

😂😂 "Stop spamming me"?

This is a **public forum**, not your private inbox. You voluntarily entered **my thread** and commented on **my post**. If you don't want to read it, simply ignore it and move on. You don't get to decide what topics I comment on or how often I contribute.

As for the "AI-generated" line, that's just intellectual cowardice. AI doesn't invent facts—it helps organise publicly available information. If anything I wrote is false, quote the sentence and disprove it.

But you can't.

You know why you trying to run ? Over the past few weeks, I have consistently challenged and dismantled several of your Atiku-inspired narratives with documented facts, and that appears to have become uncomfortable.

So rather than rebut the evidence, you attack the length of the post, mention AI and hope the discussion moves away from the substance.

If "no one reads them," why are you here commenting on them?

The engagement on my threads speaks for itself.

If the facts are wrong, prove it.

If not, calling something "AI-generated" is not a rebuttal—it's an admission that you couldn't answer the argument.

The facts remain standing. So will my posts.

CharlesCNG:
Notice how you didn't dispute a single fact in the original post.

You didn't show that Tinubu wrote the bill.

You didn't show that he has already assented to it.

You didn't show that the preaching provision was newly created in 2026.

You simply abandoned the topic and switched to campaign slogans.

I call that tactic of Obidients "switch to bait" and I am glad you've picked up on it.

It is effective as I have seen posters as erudite as you fall for it. Before they know it, the Obidient has dragged them into a slanging match away from the sensible post they've made.

Sometimes the poster and the Obidient are banned for some time, of course this won't deter the Obidient as (s)he has other monikers primed to continue their path of destruction.

They might be dastardly but they are a dastardly well oiled machine.