MURIC KWARA BRANCH REPLIES ANTHONY KILA

9^th December, 2024

PRESS RELEASE:

MURIC KWARA BRANCH REPLIES ANTHONY KILA

Professor Anthony Kila recently penned an article under the title ‘A Threat Called MURIC’ in which he attacked the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), an Islamic human rights organization. But the chairman of the Kwara State Chapter of MURIC, Barrister Taofeeq Jaji, has debunked all the allegations levelled by Professor Kila against MURIC and its leadership.

In a statement released to the media on Monday, 9^th December, 2024 which was captioned, ‘A Rejoinder to Dr. Anthony Kila’s Article Titled “A Threat Called MURIC’, Barrister Taofeeq Jaji said:

“Dr Anthony Kila’s recent piece titled ‘A Threat Called MURIC’ raises important points about our shared responsibility for preserving harmony and inclusivity in Yorubaland Politics. However, the article’s characterization of MURIC (Muslim Rights Concern) and its director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, as theeats reflects a misunderstanding of MURIC’s intentions and activities. While it is commendable to seek the preservation of unity and democracy, Dr. Kila’s critique veers into misrepresentation, selective analysis, and unfounded speculation, which deserve to be addressed.

“Just as Dr. Kila asks, “How did we get here?”, one might similarly inquire how a group advocating for fairness and inclusion becomes the target of accusations of divisiveness. Let us examine the issues raised.

“Dr. Kila paints MURIC as a small but vocal group sowing unnecessary and ‘toxic divisiveness.’ This is both a simplistic and inaccurate depiction. MURIC, under the leadership of Professor Akintola, has branches across the 36 States of the federation, consistently advocating for the rights of Nigerian Muslims, a legitimate effort aligned with constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. To deliberately construe this advocacy as divisive ignores the context in which it arises: a landscape where Muslims are underrepresented and misrepresented in public spaces, media, and policy.

“Besides, size is no determinant of impact or legitimacy. By this logic, any minority group championing its rights would be dismissed as ‘unnecessary.’ Rather than dismissing MURIC’s voice, it is important to engage with the substance of its concerns.

“The article accuses MURIC of intolerance for criticizing GOTV’s disproportionate airing of Christian programs. It describes the criticism as a ‘sort of fatwa’ and frames it as an attack on Christianity. This is gross misrepresentation. MURIC’s demand for balanced representation is not about suppressing Christian content but about ensuring that Muslims, too, have equitable access to media platforms.

A diverse society like Nigeria thrives on inclusivity. When any group raises concerns about being underrepresented, the solution is not to label them intolerant but to engage with their grievances constructively. The call for dialogue with GOTV is not a threat but an invitation to address legitimate concerns about inclusivity.

“By the way, it is obvious that Kila attempted to mislead the general public about MURIC’s complaint. Contrary to Kila’s writeup, MURIC did not ask GOTV to stop airing Christian programmes. It merely protested against putting the Christian ‘Faith’ programme as a default channel to be viewed by customers as they switch on their television sets. It is needless to point out that even the ‘Faith’ programme has its own channel allotted to it (Channel 110) while Islam channel is in channel 111.

“Dr. Kila rightly celebrates Yorubaland’s history of interfaith harmony, but he erroneously suggests that MURIC threatens this legacy. Far from undermining harmony, MURIC’s work seeks to ensure that Muslims in Yorubaland and beyond enjoy their rights within that same harmonious framework. Highlighting imbalances in representation or participation does not equate to fostering division; it is a call for equity. Kila is attempting to silence Muslims.

“The article also suggests that Yoruba culture inherently separates religion from politics, implying that MURIC’s advocacy disrupts this arrangement. However, it overlooks the reality that politics and religion often intersect in public policy. It is within this intersection that MURIC operates, calling for fairness in public affairs, including representation and appointments. To conflate this advocacy with sectarianism is both unfair and misleading.

“Dr. Kila accuses MURIC of rejecting Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s re-election bid solely based on his religion. This characterization is simplistic. MURIC’s stance on the rotation of political offices reflects broader discussions about inclusivity and equitable representation, not religious bigotry. While one might disagree with MURIC’s reasoning, dismissing it as religious discrimination misrepresents the group’s argument.

“Furthermore, Yoruba cosmopolitanism, as rightly noted by Dr. Kila, thrives on dialogue and merit. MURIC’s critiques should be seen as part of that dialogue rather than an attempt to undermine it.

“Dr. Kila speculates that MURIC might be acting as an agent for undisclosed ‘political principles’. This insinuation is baseless and detracts from meaningful discourse. By its admission, MURIC is a non-political organization focused on advocacy for Muslim rights. If there is evidence to the contrary, it should be presented. Speculative accusations without proof serve only to distract from substantive issues.

“Kila concludes by urging readers to guard against threats to harmony and democracy, naming MURIC as a present danger. Ironically, the very freedom that allows Dr. Kila to critique MURIC is the same freedom that MURIC advocates for Muslims to enjoy. Harmony does not mean silence in the face of perceived inequities; it means addressing them constructively while respecting all parties.

“To preserve Yorubaland’s enviable legacy of interfaith unity, we must engage with all voices, even those we disagree with, rather than dismissing them as threats. If Dr. Kila truly believes in protecting democracy and harmony, he must extend this principle to include MURIC’s right to advocate for fairness. Now it is Kila who does not want the voice of dissent. Kila has a phobia for Muslim freedom. In this context, Kila is the threat, not MURIC, not Akintola.

“MURIC is not a threat to Yorubaland’s harmony or Nigeria’s democracy. It is an advocacy group seeking to amplify Muslim voices in a society where they often feel marginalized. Dismissing their efforts as divisive ignores the substance of their grievances. Rather than silencing or misrepresenting such groups, let us engage in dialogue, address legitimate concerns, and work together to strengthen the harmony and inclusivity which we all cherish.

“It is our hope that those who gave Kila the platform to lampoon MURIC and its leader will be fair enough to allow right of reply. It is the principle in journalism.”

#MURICNotAThreat

#KilaIsTheThreat

Bar. Taofeek Jaji,

Chairman,

Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC),

Kwara State Chapter