Nigerian Law School and the need for change
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/nigerian-law-school-and-need-for-change.html

A law graduate or lawyer that cannot defend his or her own basic rights as contained in the constitution does not deserve to be called a legal practitioner. Why because, such person is not fit to defend the right of others. You can’t defend the right of others, if you can’t defend your own rights.

This is why I have always maintained that there are very few lawyers in Nigeria who deserve to be called legal practitioners, what we have are business men and women who trade in the legal profession. If not, the abusive system in the Nigerian Law School could not have been tolerated for this long without much resistance. It appeared lawyers are now trained to be docile, so they could not defend human right,but to wear wig and collect certificate.

For the Nigerian law school, which has become notorious in flagrant violation of basic rights of many Nigerians, including female Muslim Students who have been consistently denied their right to decent dressing as prescribed by their constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, the time for change is now.

To change an unjust system, there must be at least one disobedient person, who is very much aware of the unjust system and purposefully decides to disobey it, with the intention of causing change and permanent restructuring. This is exactly what has happened during the recently conducted call to bar by the Nigerian Law School.

A Muslim lady, Amasa A Firdaus who graduated from University of Ilorin and Nigerian Law School, Abuja campus was barred from entering the International Conference Center (ICC) for the call to bar programme because she refuses to remove her decently worn hijab in defiance to the repugnant tradition of the law school, which ban use of hijab by female Muslim students.

Firdaus is not the only victim of this violation of basic rights, thousand of female Muslims had continued to suffer similar abuse over the years.

Few days before the unfortunate incident at the call to bar event in Abuja, some young people had taken to the social media to launch a campaign to call for change in the law school discriminatory practice against Female Muslims. It appeared Firdaus,a female law graduate, who was the Ameera of Muslim Students Society (MSS) at University of Ilorin resolved to take up the challenge to fight for all victims, as she also preside as the Ameera of Nigerian female Muslim lawyers at the law School.

While I understand that rule 36 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Revised (2007) expressly decries the "wearing of apparel and ornament" that draws attention to a legal practitioner appearing before a judge, but hijab doesn’t fall into such apparel ornament that can be decried upon, because it is a constitutional right that no bye law can suppress on a permanent basis.

It has been established that the constitution is a ground norm and by section 1(1) & (3) thereof, it is Supreme and binding on all authorities and persons in Nigeria and as well above the ordinary laws of the land. Since the constitution recognizes ones right to manifest ones religion and belief in practice and observance, a Muslim female, being a Nigerian too, has the right to wear her veil anywhere, any time.

“The Constitution of Nigeria is the basic norm from which all the other laws of the society derive their validity. Any other law that is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution must give way or abate”. This is the position of the law court in the case of PDP V CPC (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1277) 485 at 511.

Besides the above, there are numerous court judgements from Appeal Court and even Supreme Court that has maintained that the use of hijab by female Muslims is a right that cannot be denied because veil is part and parcel of religious practice of a female Muslim, if she chooses to wear it.

The Court of Appeal Ilorin Division in the case of *PROVOST, KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, ILORIN & 2 ORS VS BASHIRAT SALIU & 2 ORS Appeal No CA/IL/49/2006, delivered on the 18th day of June, 2009 held that:“The use of veil by the respondents, therefore qualifies as a fundamental right under Section 38 (1) of the Constitution”.

In another court of Appeal judgement in Massoud AbdulRahman Oredola, JCA, it was held that; “The right of the Respondents to wear their Hijab, veil within the School campus and INDEED ANYWHERE else is adequately protected under our laws.

I therefore hold the views that, the only reason why such archaic rule still existed in the Nigerian law school is because nobody has been courageous enough to challenge it like Firdaus has now done and all well meaning Nigerians must rise up to defend our law and not their personal sentiments.

It is important to note that, if the law school can make rules to deny people their right under the guise of profession, then to what use is the constitution? That means every profession can then proceed to make unjust laws and claim it is to protect a professional ethics. We must not allow this to continue.

I am also aware that religious right is not absolute. The right is subject to section 45 of the constitution which gives government the right to disregard citizen's right to religion in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons. But the practice in the Nigerian law school doesn’t fall into any of these categories.

While some people might want to argue that it falls into the public order category, but they have to explain how exercising a right to wear hijab impedes public order. And even if it is for public order for the purpose of defense, such ban cannot be permanent; it can only last for some time.

The Supreme Court decision in M.D.P.D.T. v. Okonkwo (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710), explained that, for the purpose of public interest, such right would be held in abeyance.

In view of the above, the Nigerian Law School must begin the process of changing all of its rules that are inconsistent with the Nigerian constitution. This is the only way to guarantee peace and teach law.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is a Human Rights Ambassador and Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals. He can be reached at discus4now@gmail.com

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/nigerian-law-school-and-need-for-change.html

i been won read the long write up but as i see hijab i just stop. there are laws everywhere.

Omo nawa o. Shey na hijab wan come cause all these epistle?

Lawyers please reply d OP ,I wan sell market...I dey come back come read comments.

Hijab hijab hijab . . . . na wa O! We no go hear anything for this NL again
Abeg, na who Rochas don mould again ? ? ?

Being called to bar is not a right. Your freedom of religion/expression only limits to rights. Being called to bar is a priviledge, there is a difference.

This priviledge has a set of preconditioned terms and the call to bar ceremony is part of the steps to get this privilege.

People should stop being emotional. As long as the dress code is part of the tenets of the Law school, obey it.

What people should fight for is the total removal of the dresscode in its entirety and not looking to allow hijabs or cele members

The law school should rise above its rules and recognize people have diverse human rights which they need to uphold.


A lawyers' wig is not affected by the wearing of an hijab. Especially when its not worn for the sole intention of flouting rules. Her hijab is her way of life and is worn 247.

Origin:
The law school should rise above its rules and recognize people have diverse human rights which they need to uphold.


A lawyers' wig is not affected by the wearing of an hijab. Especially when its not worn for the sole intention of flouting rules. Her hijab is her way of life and is worn 247.

A Cele member is not allowed to wear black. What should they do?

Origin:
The law school should rise above its rules and recognize people have diverse human rights which they need to uphold.

A lawyers' wig is not affected by the wearing of an hijab. Especially when its not worn for the sole intention of flouting rules. Her hijab is her way of life and is worn 247.

How many Magistrates and Judges wear hijab?
Aloma Mukhtar was a Muslim lady, an Hajia and CJN, was she wearing hijab?
Does it reduce the piety of those not wearing hijab?

This is the legal profession and not pepper seller's union. Your opinion or otherwise wouldn't change the way things are done here.

Intolerance, Discrimination and Sentiments
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

In a multi cultural and multi religious society like Nigeria, violation of basic rights breeds chaos and disobedience.

While discrimination, especially on the basis of religion causes disunity among people, sentiments on the other hand, causes fracture and motivate the feeling of revenge.

This is why every lover of peace and unity must at all times, be sensitive to the basic rights of others and not be seen as obstacle for no just cause.

Following my publication on the hijab controversy at the Nigerian law school few days ago, titled ‘’Nigerian Law School and the need for change’’, several people had reached out to me to give their views on the subject matter. In view of the numerous messages, I feel that i owe them further explanation in the interest of public good. So, this publication is a follow up to the first one, hoping that people might learn to understand the implication of their actions and its effect on peaceful coexistence, which will directly or indirectly have effect on their own living.

Apart from the fact that hijab is a legal right, already upheld in several court in the country, what we are contending with is our level of intolerance, discrimination and sentiments, not for any personal good or benefit, but for the satisfaction of bias.
The idea that people who share different faith, culture or tradition must not be accommodated or their rights not be protected is a fundamental flaw in our reasoning that must not be left unchallenged. This is an archaic reasoning in all ramifications.

For example, in February 2017, the Court of Appeal Lagos Division dismissed an application filed by the Lagos State Government seeking an injunction to suspend Hijab use by Muslim female pupils in public schools. While dismissing the suite, the Judge held that the ban on hijab was discriminatory. The panel upheld the contention that the ban violated their rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, dignity of human persons and freedom from discrimination guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution. So, there is no argument on whether or not, hijab is a right. The contention is about our level of intolerance, discrimination and sentiments.

When I see people opposing the use of hijab, I ask myself only one question. On what basis are they opposing it? Does wearing hijab by one person, infringes the right of the other person who don’t want to wear it? If not, how does the person who enjoys the right of not using hijab, justify his or her opposition to those who want to wear it? Only one answer surfaces here and it is intolerance.

Unfortunately, by opposing hijab, you are not fighting for your own right, but instead, fighting against the right of others. This is really a dangerous mindset, not against the people you oppose per se, but against your own self, because the same reasoning you use to justify your opposition to the rights of others will be brought into the quality of decisions you make for yourself.

But here is even a greater danger. When you oppose the right of others for no sane reason or benefits to you, they will also oppose you for no sane reason or benefit to them when the opportunity comes. Both of you would then continue to oppose each other for no sane reason, thereby leading to unnecessary tension, suspicion and even violence. This is what has breed insecurity in our country. The unnecessary suspicion manifest in virtually every aspect of our lives and it continues to escalate and breed tension even in the most unexpected places.

I have observed over the years that most of the conflicts we have in Nigeria are not real conflicts, they are mostly unnecessary conflicts born out of nothing and to achieve nothing. More importantly, they cannot be resolved, because they are nothing. You cannot resolve nothing, when there is nothing. Our conflicts are imaginary, born out of psychological misconception and the need to oppose others for opposition sake. This is why even those who claimed to be human right activists or lawyers fall into this ditch of inconsistency without seeing their bias. From claiming to be proponent of rule of law, they will take a 360 degree U-turn against the right of others and still feel the need to justify their absurdity.

For example, just few months ago, we defended the right of a female Muslim Central Bank Deputy Governor Aisha Ahmad, who chooses not to wear hijab, but today, those who defended her right not to use hijab are the same set of people are opposing the right of another female Muslim, who chooses to wear hijab. How can one lady have the right not wear hijab, and the other won’t have the right to wear it? This is where the inconsistency in activism comes in. It appeared they are not really interested in the law or the rightness of an action, but merely taking a position that is only consistent with their sentiment, interest or affiliation at a particular time.

On a final note, let me remind us all that, if we oppose other peoples right because it infringes on our own right, this is understandable. If we also oppose other people’s practices because it prevents us from practicing ours, this may also be understandable. And even if we oppose the right of others because it affects our own interest, that maybe acceptable as well. But, what could never be understandable is the fact that, we oppose other people’s right, not because it infringes on ours or prevent us from enjoying our own interest, but simply because we do not want others to enjoy their own right. This is a disjointed reasoning that we must expunge from our society if we are to achieve cohesion, stability and tranquility.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is a Human Rights Ambassador and Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals. He can be reached at discus4now@gmail.com