JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
Please Godwin
When the National Assembly forwarded the amendment bill to the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) for presidential assent, one provision immediately dominated public discourse. It wasn’t about tougher penalties for traffic offenses or broader reforms in road safety administration. This concerned the proposed restriction on preaching, street vending and trading within moving commercial vehicles.
Predictably, social media exploded. For many, the proposal represented yet another attempt by the government to police citizens’ freedoms. Religious groups described it as an attack on the constitutional right to freedom of worship. Others dismissed it as evidence that lawmakers were preoccupied with trivialities as millions of Nigerians grapple with inflation, insecurity and an economy under severe pressure.
Such reactions are understandable. Nigerians have every reason to scrutinize the actions of those who govern them. Public skepticism didn’t develop overnight; it is the product of years of broken promises, misplaced priorities, and policies that too often fail to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
However, even justified skepticism should not replace careful reasoning.
Long before this debate became a national conversation, I had my own encounters with what has now become the subject of legislation. More than twenty years ago, while traveling with my family in eastern Nigeria, our commercial bus became a revolving stage. Several Christian preachers came aboard to evangelize the passengers. Soon after, merchants arrived selling everything from herbal remedies to snacks and household items. Years later, I experienced the same pattern on trips through the Southwest.
These experiences are not unique. They are intertwined in the road transport culture in Nigeria.
As a practicing Christian, I have heard many of those sermons. Some inspired reflections; others presented doctrines that I did not agree with. But that’s not the point. What struck me was how a moving commercial vehicle had become many things at once: a church, a market and, occasionally, a noisy contest for passengers’ attention. The one person whose attention mattered most, the driver, was expected to navigate busy highways in the midst of it all.
This is where this conversation should begin.
For days, much of the public debate has revolved around freedom of religion. This constitutional right is sacred and must never be compromised. But rights, however fundamental, do not exist in isolation. They are exercised alongside another equally pressing obligation: the state’s responsibility to protect human lives.
Road accidents remain one of Nigeria’s most persistent public safety challenges. Inadequate road infrastructure, speeding, reckless driving, vehicle defects and inadequate enforcement contribute to the grim statistics. Yet distraction is another factor that receives far less attention than it deserves.
We readily accept laws against the use of cell phones while driving because they distract drivers. We ban drunk driving because poor judgment kills. Seat belt regulations exist because they reduce the number of fatalities. These measures are not seen as attacks on personal freedom but as reasonable limitations imposed in the interest of public safety.
Should activities that distract the driver’s concentration inside a moving commercial vehicle be treated differently simply because they are religious or commercial in nature?
This is the question we should be discussing.
Contrary to some public impressions, the proposal is not an outright ban on preaching the gospel or practicing one’s faith. Nor does it criminalize legitimate trade. Its focus is considerably narrower: activities carried out inside moving commercial vehicles that could compromise road safety.
The distinction matters.
Arguing that preaching can be restricted on a moving bus is not arguing that preaching should be banned in society. The Great Commission has never been limited to commercial buses. Christianity flourished long before public transportation became a platform for evangelism, and it will continue to flourish without it.
The same reasoning applies to falconry. No honest observer can ignore the harsh economic reality that forces many Nigerians to earn a living wherever the opportunity exists. But economic difficulties cannot become a sufficient justification for activities that could expose dozens of commuters to avoidable dangers.
This is where emotion must give way to evidence.
A weakness of our national conversations is our tendency to evaluate every government proposal through the lens of accumulated frustration. Because government has often failed, we instinctively assume that every policy is oppressive or inappropriate. While this suspicion is understandable, it is not always intellectually right.
A proposal should be criticized for its flaws, not just its origin.
This is not to say that the amendment is perfect. Issues relating to enforcement, possible abuses by security agencies and the need for empirical evidence linking preaching or in-vehicle falconry to road accidents deserve serious consideration. Laws should be subjected to rigorous public scrutiny before they come into force. This is the essence of constitutional democracy.
But scrutiny must not result in false statements.
As a person who professes the Christian faith, I believe that the Gospel must be proclaimed with courage. I also believe that preserving human life is a moral obligation shared by both government and citizens. The two beliefs are not incompatible. If a narrowly targeted restriction on activities inside moving commercial vehicles can reduce distractions and potentially save lives, then the proposal deserves careful scrutiny rather than reflexive condemnation.
One of humanity’s greatest gifts is the ability to reason. Faith does not require us to suspend logic; in fact, genuine faith welcomes honest reasoning. Our public discourse would be healthier if we approached controversial policies with fewer assumptions and greater intellectual discipline.
The debate on the amendment to the FRSC should therefore go beyond slogans about censorship or religious persecution. The real question is whether Nigeria will be able to take reasonable measures that improve road safety without needlessly infringing constitutional freedoms.
This is a conversation worth having. And it is one of those that deserves more trials than emotions.
‘Want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need advertising for a product, service or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Please donate any amount HERE
