Sequel to this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/4238522/legal-precedence-firdaus-hijab-nigerian#63363292


Rule 36 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Revised (2007) expressly decries the "wearing of apparel and ornament".

This has to do with a legal practitioner appearing before a judge, the hijab cannot be among such apparel ornament that can be decried upon, because it is a constitutional right that no bye-law can suppress on a permanent basis.


There are express judgements delivered by court of appeal on the subject matter, unlike the "blanket judgement" cited earlier in that thread.

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 judgment in Massoud Abdul Rahman 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.




The religious right is not absolute and here is a provision of the constitution that give instances that such right can be taken off: The right is subject to section 45 of the constitution which gives the 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

Again, there's a judgement of the supreme court that proves such cannot exercised permanently:


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.



The constitution is the ground norm , and any law in disagreement with it should be stepped down.

Here's a judgement in that regard: This is the position of the law court in the case of PDP V CPC (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1277) 485 at 511.



Cc
Mynd44
Seunmsg
Cooljoe
Bedspread
Mapet
Alexmaye
Ollah
Kanujewsarepigs

Nice

Caseless:
Sequel to this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/4238522/legal-precedence-firdaus-hijab-nigerian#63363292


Rule 36 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession Revised (2007) expressly decries the "wearing of apparel and ornament".

This has to do with a legal practitioner appearing before a judge, the hijab cannot be among such apparel ornament that can be decried upon, because it is a constitutional right that no bye-law can suppress on a permanent basis.


There are express judgements delivered by court of appeal on the subject matter, unlike the "blanket judgement" cited earlier in that thread.

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 judgment in Massoud Abdul Rahman 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.




The religious right is not absolute and here is a provision of the constitution that give instances that such right can be taken off: The right is subject to section 45 of the constitution which gives the 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

Again, there's a judgement of the supreme court that proves such cannot exercised permanently:


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.



The constitution is the ground norm , and any law in disagreement with it should be stepped down.

Here's a judgement in that regard: This is the position of the law court in the case of PDP V CPC (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1277) 485 at 511.



Cc
Mynd44
Seunmsg
Cooljoe
Bedspread
Mapet
Alexmaye
Ollah
Kanujewsarepigs

Apt!

KanuJEWSarePIGS:


Apt!

mynd44 and other bias guys will always run away when confronted with facts. He has the power to move his own thread to the front-page , so he did by misinforming the general public with a blanket judgement, but he has avoided this like a plague.



Mynd44, I de wait for you to come and turn facts on their heads.