₦airaland Forum

Dog, Goat, Cat and Chicken unite to eat on the same plate without any rancour, so why is it so hard for we, the so called higher animals with brain?

SAY NO TO HATE

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2018/02/image-of-strange-unity-between-dog-goat.html

Soldier escape death from Sambisa forest, murdered by herdsmen

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2018/02/soldier-escape-death-from-sambisa.html

A soldier whose name was not mentioned have been murdered by herdsmen, after being redeployed out of sambisa forest in Borno state.

A friend to the diseased, Ololu Idris Sadam‎ took to Kwara Must Change group on facebook to lament the passage of his friend.

He wrote:

Bros, am still shock over your death. You escape death in sambisa forest but unknowingly death awaits you in hands of herdsmen. What a black Saturday, RIP uzoo till we meet again

hum

HOLYDICK:
Drop dis one in sambisa...and he would retract back that statement
Trust me i know wat am saying

HOLYDICK:
Drop dis one in sambisa...and he would retract back that statement
Trust me i know wat am saying

They are already in Sambisa for about 3 years now

Young Soldier vow to preserve,protect and defend Nigeria

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/young-ssoldier-vow-to-preserveprotect.html

A young Nigerian soldier, who goes by the name, Adebayo Olatayo David has taken to the social media to declare his total allegiance to the preservation, protection and defense of the territorial integrity of Nigeria.

Adebayo who posted a picture of himself and other soldiers posted as follows:

''You can have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government; while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it''.

hum

Don’t rush to judge
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

Home is a place you are welcome, a place you are comfortable, a place that evoke memories of history and ownership. It is a place you are free to be good or bad and still maintain your human dignity. Home is a place you are allowed to be fallible and be human.

In a place you can call home, that’s a place you should be able to enjoy the comfort of self expression and vast exploration without restriction. It is a place that offers you all the opportunity it can afford, so that you can realize your dreams and life aspirations without jeopardizing your decency, culture and sanity.

Any place or location that offers you the above is worthy to be called home, no matter where it is, because indeed, it is home.

However, this kind of perfect home description is almost non existent in our world today. No place in the world today come close actually, but it is not unachievable, should we decide to pursue it. We all deserve to be at home.

Many people only see their place of birth as their home. Some considers their parent place of origin home, while others see their places of residence as home. In truth, all these places could be home, but if it doesn’t welcome you and give you comfort, if it doesn’t evoke memories and give you a sense of ownership, if it doesn’t accord you the opportunity to be free, whether for good or bad and yet maintain your human dignity, if it doesn’t allow you to explore so you can realize your dreams and life aspirations while keeping your decency, culture and sanity, it is not yet worthy to be called home.

Theoretically, when the word home is mentioned, several meanings come to mind. To Pourteous (1976), it is a structure or area in which an emotional investment has been made by an individual or a small group. In western sense of it, home is seen as the major site of family social relations and kinship interactions, a place to carry out the everyday routine of family life (Allan and Crow, 1989).

Okeyinka, (2012) explained that, home is unique and for a place to be called home, there are many factors the home must fulfil. This is why it is always referred to as a physical place and a cognitive concept.

However, the Yoruba understanding of home is broad and all encompassing. In Yoruba philosophy, home is seen to be physical, physiological and spiritual. ‘’Ile ni abo isin mi ok''o is a popular Yoruba phrase, which is literally translated to mean, ’’home is the resting abode’’.

One of the universal attribute of man is imperfection and to live a fulfilled life in spite of these short comings, man requires a place that accommodates him and all his imperfections, so that he can learn and grow with experience. However, in the traditional way of dietifying what they cannot explain, the Yoruba resorted to the almighty and concluded that, ‘’Orun ni ile’’, meaning that, ‘’Heaven is Home’’. It was assumed that the kind of perfect home we envisage can only be available in heaven.

In a publication titled returning to Lagos: Making the Oja Home, Solima Otero gave an analysis of the Yoruba concept of ‘’aye loja’’ earth is a market place and ‘’orun ni ile ‘’ heaven is home’’.

According to him, in the idea of ‘’oja‘’ the Yoruba market place’’, and ‘’orun’’ (heaven) as home, yoruba present a truncated form of meta-analysis that provides a cultural critique about both the subject matter at hand and the use of language to reflect that message. The notion of the bustling, busy oja expressed in the proverb certainly applies to the place at which returning Africans and Afrocubanos arrived on their journey home.

However, beyond the Yoruba explanation, a Christian fundamentalist, Rev Eric D Barreto explained the concept of heaven as home in a different way. While trying to explain what heaven is all about, Rev Eric noted that heaven is far more ordinary. According to him, heaven is opportunity. Heaven is the mere chance for a better life. Heaven is found just on the other side of the border. He concluded that, heaven is tangible, if only the right papers and documents and citizenship could come into their possession. What this mean is that, when the word home is mentioned, what come to mind are freedom, opportunity and comfort. Even when home is said to be in heaven as emphasized in Yoruba philosophy, man’s quest for comfort is still brought into the definition of the home in heaven. If the world is a busy market place, heaven which is regarded as home is seen as the resting abode.

If this is the case, I am of the opinion that, we need not go to heaven to have a desired home. We can start to build a home for everyone anywhere we find ourselves. We can start to make everyone in our environment enjoy the comfort of self expression and vast exploration without restriction.

We should not crucify people because they are fallible as human, just like we are. Let us allow everyone to be good or bad and still maintain their human dignity, hoping that they will learn and grow to be better human with experience.

I have observed that nobody wants to be bad in the real sense of it, but everyone has some element of badness in them. We all didn’t acquire those traits intentionally. The summation of our life experiences made us who we are and we should not blame or crucify people too much for being victim of circumstances that made them.

Since it has been established that every human has some elements of badness, we shouldn’t make each other worse, by denying ourselves a worthy home.

If we can take our time to ask people what they have been through that made them who they are, we are most likely going to appreciate them and pity them for who they turned out to be. If you think someone is bad or unpleasant, don’t rush to judge or condemn them, until you go through what they went through and come out differently and better.

Finally, rather than judge people, without knowing their story or what made them who they turned out to be, make them a home.

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

?

?

The people constructed the above after the bridge collapsed as seen below

This is Tsaragi - Bacita road in Kwara State.
Please, help us thank the Kwara State government for this wonderful road.

From: Kwara Must Change

Rt. Hon. Ali Ahmad
Honorable Speaker,
Kwara State House of Assembly (KWHA),
Kwara State, Ilorin.
25/01/2018
Dear Sir,
REJECTION OF PROPOSAL TO GAUGE THE PRESS IN KWARA STATE
Kwara Must Change wishes to express its outright displeasure with the news item that emanated from the Kwara State House of Assembly (KWHA) regarding a proposed attempt to gauge the press in Kwara State, particularly the ban of live political programs on all broadcast stations in the State. We reject in entirety, the content of this anti democratic plan and urge the KWHA to abort it with immediate effect.
Specifically, the Kwara State House of Assembly (KWHA) after deliberation on a motion titled ‘’The need for all broadcast stations in Kwara to comply with NBC codes and regulations’’ directed the office of the state commissioner for justice to make a strong representation to the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to ban live partisan political programs on all broadcast stations in the state. The house asked the commissioner for justice to write to the NBC to compel political parties to limit their discussions on the broadcast stations to their party manifestos. The resolution also added that no reference should be made by parties to the activities of other political parties or government headed by other political parties. The house further directed the initiation of the withdrawal of operating license of any broadcast stations that violates the NBC codes and regulations.
We at Kwara Must Change holds that, the resolution of the house is a misplaced priority and an act of mischief that is capable of jeopardizing the current peace enjoyed in the state. Kwara Must Change consider the spending of tax payers money and the state’s scarce resources on such frivolous mission as insensitive to the plight of the people and we condemn this insensitivity in the strongest term. We equally urge the lawmakers to avoid any act of legislative rascality that is unknown to any sane democratic society.
It is important to state that, every Nigerian, irrespective of political affiliation is guaranteed of his or her basic human rights, among which includes rights to press, freedom of expression, thoughts and conscience, which can be expressed either privately or publicly. These rights are inalienable and are properly protected in Section 39 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. To therefore suggest that any Nigerian be banned from exercising their constitutional right on broadcast stations is nothing but an act of tyranny and high level impunity that should not be associated with any responsible legislative chamber.
More importantly, it is not within the capacity of the Kwara State House of Assembly (KWHA) to help National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) carry out its constitutional duty of enforcing codes and regulations. If NBC felt that any broadcast station in Kwara State has bridged any code or regulation, it would take appropriate action to sanction the affected station.
We therefore find it strange that the Kwara State House of Assembly (KWHA) is attempting to usurp the powers of NBC by imposing on itself, the duty of law enforcer in media practice or attempting to influence the NBC to take actions that are unknown to law.
Kwara Must Change make bold to say that, broadcast stations in Kwara State, like others in other parts of the country have not violated any NBC code by hosting live radio programs that is discussing and educating the public on government policies as well as giving people from the affected areas the opportunity to contribute via call in contribution.
Additionally, we have observed that all through the federation, there are civil and political programs on radio stations that are being anchored by citizens irrespective of political affiliation and we understand that being part of a political party doesn’t strip any citizen or group of citizens off their basic rights, neither can NBC prevent healthy public discussion that is aimed at educating the public simply because some politicians or people in government are not comfortable with critical analysis of their programs.
Kwara Must Change is a conscious civil and political advocacy movement and we understand that the resolution of the KWHA, threatening the revocation of operating license of public serve broadcast stations is to say the least unfortunate.
Similarly, the directive asking NBC to sanction stations is misplaced, because the house cannot be teaching NBC it job. If the NBC feels that any broadcast station has violated it code, it doesn’t require the service of KWHA to perform its constitutional duty. It is our understanding that, NBC is a responsible organization that is not answerable to KWHA, it codes and regulations is not limited to Kwara State broadcast stations and neither can it create special preference for Kwara State simply because some politicians are uncomfortable with public opinion about their performances on radio stations.
Finally, Kwara Must Change reaffirms its total rejection of the unconstitutional proposal of KWHA to gauge the press in Kwara state and we urge them to desist from such anti masses agenda to avoid invoking the anger of the people. We warn, most respectfully, that should the house not desist from this defeatist agenda, we shall be forced to mobilize citizens in protest to shutdown the KWHA.
OUR DEMANDS
Specifically, we demand as follows
• We demand that the motion on ’’the need for all broadcast stations in Kwara to comply with NBC codes and regulations’’ be dropped in its entirety and the house should desist from further attempt to gauge the press in the state. We maintain that NBC does not require the service of KWHA to carry out its constitutional duty.
• We demand that the KWHA issue public apology to all broadcast stations in the state for wrongly inferring that they violated NBC code, which is actually untrue.
• We demand a public apology from KWHA to the good people of Kwara State for attempting to undermine the people and prevent them from being properly informed of issues.
• We demand an immediate halt in funding frivolous trips to Abuja under the guise of discussing violation of NBC code and further spending of tax payers funds on frivolous missions such as this.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
Convener
Kwara Must Change

IG Wala has been arrested by the police since yesterday. He was held at FIB
(FCIID), abuja. Why was he arrested? He was arrested based on a spurious and
baseless petition writen by the chairman of hajj commission, muktar abdullahi on
the same baseless matter already taken to court by the same hajj commission
chairman. It is important to note that, while the chairman of hajj commission took
wala to court on alleged defamation, when the matter came up for hearing in
december, wala was properly represented, but there was no sign of hajj
commision, the chairman abdullahi muktar or their lawyer. They were all absent.
So, how can hajj commission chairman sue wala and refused to appear or
represented in court, only to write a baseless petition and request for wala's
arrest by police. This is not only an abuse, but a calculated attempt to silene
wala for speaking out against endemic corruption at the hajj commission.
surprisingly, I G of police allowed himself to be used in process of violating the
law by hajj commission chairman and intimidating an anti corruption activist.
After spending the night at police detention, wala has been taken to maitama
court on 4th floor today, not for any hearing, but to be taken to prison. This is
high level intimidation by hajj commission chairman, illegal arrest by police and
comspiracy.
Citizens Action To Take Back Nigeria (CATBAN) call on all activists, human right
advocates and media to join our call to the appropriate authorities to release IG
Wala with immidiate effect.
Let it be known that all attempt to silence CATBAN from exposing corruption at
Hajj Commission has failed and this latest effort by the most corrupt hajj
commission chairman will suffer the same faith.
# FreeIGWala
Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
Co-Convener
Citizens Action To Take Back Nigeria

RoyalUc:
I think you are very correct sir.

One of the greatest men in history once said:

"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man...eats only vegetables...one man conciders one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind...You, then,...why do you look down on your brother? Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way...let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." Rom 14:2 -19.

We must learn to sincerely and genuinely tolerate one another.

You are very correct. All we have to do is open our mind

NO HAPPY BIRTHDAY FOR PRESIDENT BUHARI. I do not wish to wish President Buhari happy birthday. I want to be the person who openly doesn't wish president Muhammadu Buhari happy birthday. This is my way of protest against the silence of the President over the mass killing of shiite in Zaria. From reports, hundreds of Nigerian citizens were killed, yet the President keep mum. This is not only wrong, it is a sign of arrogance of the first order. While his spokesmen are quick to issue statement concerning rumor online, they do not find the lives of over 100 Nigerians worthy of any attention. Even when foreign countries such as Iran, UK, USA etc had shown concern, even when the leader of Iran had reportedly called the President, even when Senate and house of Representatives had set up investigative panel, the president do not find it worthy of his attention. The concern of the over 170m Nigerian seems not to matter, they don't deserve explanation or reassurance. I am not happy with the President and I will not wish him a happy birthday.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

Dilish007:
Thank you very much. I usually read posts and comments on Nairaland as a guest but on this day I had to login in order to like your post. You said it all. This is the best post I've read pertaining to this topic.

No institution is above the law. Constitution is above them all.

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

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

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

indeed

Another Female law graduate vow to attend call to bar with hijab next year
http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/another-female-law-graduate-vow-to.html

Following the refusal of Nigeria Law School to call Miss Firdaus Amasa to bar for refusing to take off her hijab last week, another female law graduate from University of Ilorin, Laylah Al-Mubarakah has vow to attend the same programme next year with her hijab on.

The father of the lady, Alhaji Abubakar Aliagan, a lecturer in the university of Ilorin went to social media to announce the resolve of his daughter in solidarity with Firdaus. He stated that, ''MY DAUGHTER, EVEN IF AM NOT ALIVE AND THE MATTER IS NOT RESOLVED........YOU RECEIVE MY BLESSINGS........IN THE LIKE MANNER THE FATHER OF FIRDAUS IS NOT DISTURBED''

Alhaji ABubakar Aliagan wrote on his facebook page as follows:

Firdaus Amasa is a daughter of a dear friend. She was not call to bar because she was adamant on her Islamic mode of dress. She was a year ahead of my daughter at the Faculty of law, University of Ilorin. When her courageous father, Mallam Oba Amasa, came to my house ( he sometimes pray the SALAT in my mosque) to break the news to me, my only regret is that Firdaus was left alone in this struggle. How I wish my daughter is there this year to stand behind her.

Whether this matter is settled amicably in the court or not, my daughter, LAYLAH AL-MUBARAKÀH, has vowed to be the next victim. She wrote the following lines in her blog.................

Reading the news that our courageous sister, Amasa Al jannah Fidaos was not called to the Nigerian bar because she refused to remove her hijab brought tears to my eyes. Is Fidaos the only muslim lawyer out there? Others should have joined her. I wish there were more muslim females like her. To some you may think what she has done is rebellious. But to me it is courageous and she has maintained her stand as a muslim.

Imagine this, A girl has been brought up in the way ordained by Allah right from her birth, she has been wearing the hijab from then, She has never for once remove her hijab just for the sake of being called to bar she has to remove it. Removing the Hijab is being naked.

I have been asked several times that will i remove my hijab when i am to be called to Nigerian Bar? I always answer that I dont know. But Now, I have my answer, Amasa al jannah firdaos has provided the answer.

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria particularly Chapter 4, Section 38 (1) of the 1999 constitution and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, provide:“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” Is denying her entrance in to the hall because she is wearing the hijab not an infringement on her right to practise her religion?

To Firdaos, you were our Ameerah in National Association of Muslim Law Students Unilorin Chapter and you led us well, When you were the Ameerah, through your humility and selflessness you inspired me to be like you . Now you have laid the foundation to justice and i pray and hope your efforts will be acknowledged. I celebrate you and to me you are a Legend.

This is a wake up call to every muslim in Nigeria, to fight for this injustice and use the position and power the Almighty has bestowed on you all to fight for this injustice.

MY DAUGHTER, EVEN IF AM NOT ALIVE AND THE MATTER IS NOT RESOLVED........YOU RECEIVE MY BLESSINGS........IN THE LIKE MANNER THE FATHER OF FIRDAUS IS NOT DISTURBED ........

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/another-female-law-graduate-vow-to.html

It’s been 50 years since Britain left. Why are so many African judges still wear
http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/its-been-50-years-since-britain-left.html

The British gave up their last colonies in Africa half a century ago. But they left their wigs behind.

Not just any wigs. They are the long, white, horsehair locks worn by high court judges (and King George III). They are so old-fashioned and so uncomfortable, that even British barristers have stopped wearing them.

But in former British colonies — Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Malawi and others — they live on, worn by judges and lawyers. Now, a new generation of African jurists is asking: Why are the continent’s most prominent legal minds still wearing the trappings of the colonizers?

It’s not just a question of aesthetics. The wigs and robes are perhaps the most glaring symbol of colonial inheritance at a time when that history is being dredged up in all sorts of ways. This year, Tanzanian President John Magufuli described a proposed free-trade agreement with Europe as a “form of colonialism.” In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe still refers to the British as “thieving colonialists.”

In June, the premier of the Western Cape province of South Africa was suspended from her party after writing on Twitter that modern health care was a colonial contribution.

The relics of colonialism are scattered across the continent. There are the queen’s namesakes: Victoria Falls north of Zimbabwe; Lake Victoria, bordering three countries in eastern Africa; Victoria Island in Nigeria. There is the left-lane driving, the cricket, the way public education is organised (not organized).

Most cities and streets have received new names since European rule ended. In 2013, Mugabe officially rebaptized Victoria Falls “Mosi Oa Tunya,” or “the smoke that thunders” in the Kololo language.

Yet the wig survives, along with other relics of the colonial courtroom: red robes, white bows, references to judges as “my lord” and “my lady.”

In nearly every former British colony, op-eds have been written and speeches made about why the wig ought to be removed. In Uganda, the New Vision newspaper conducted an investigation into the cost of the wigs, reporting that each one cost $6,500. In Ghana, a prominent lawyer, Augustine Niber, argued that removing wigs would reduce the “intimidation and fear that often characterize our courtrooms.”

One of the editors of the Nigerian Lawyer blog wrote that wigs weren’t made for the sweltering Lagos heat, where lawyers wilted under their garb. “The culture that invented wig and gown is different from our own and the weather is different,” Unini Chioma wrote.

Increasingly, though, opponents of the colonial outfit aren’t just arguing against inconvenience but against a tradition that African judiciaries appear to be embracing. Britain’s “colonial courts,” which preceded independence, were sometimes brutal. In response to Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s, for example, the wigged white judges sentenced more than 1,000 people to death for conspiring against colonial rule.

“The colonial system used law as [an] instrument of repression, and we’re still maintaining this tradition without questioning it,” said Arnold Tsunga, director of the Africa program at the International Commission of Jurists. “It’s a disgrace to the modern courts of Africa.”

In Kenya, former chief justice Willy Mutunga appealed to remove the wigs from the courtroom, arguing that they were a foreign imposition, not a Kenyan tradition. He swapped the traditional British red robes for ­“Kenyanized” green and yellow ones. He called the wigs “dreadful.”

But that outlook wasn’t shared by many Kenyan judges and lawyers, who saw the wigs and robes as their own uniforms, items that elevate a courtroom, despite — or because of — their colonial links.

“It was met with consternation from within the bench and the bar,” said Isaac Okero, president of the Law Society of Kenya.

Okero is a defender of the wig and the robe, and argues that they represent more than a British tradition, but something that distinguishes the country’s judges.

“I don’t feel at all that it has any negative connotation of colonialism. It has risen beyond that. It is a tradition of the Kenyan bar,” he said.

This year, Kenya’s new chief justice, David Maraga, has indicated that he wants to revert to the colonial traditions. During his swearing-in ceremony, he wore a long white wig and the British-style red robe. Many Kenyans were perplexed.

“It was his rather peculiar outfit that would send a resounding message to Kenyans,” said a broadcaster on KTN, one of the country’s most popular news channels. “It’s back to the old days.”

In Zimbabwe, still ruled by vehement anti-colonialist Mugabe, the wigs are perhaps most mystifying. Why would a man who stripped white farmers of their land, who railed against the name of Victoria Falls, allow an archaic judicial tradition to remain in place?

Some analysts say that the policy reveals something about Mugabe, the closet Anglophile, a fan of Dickens who once said cricket “civilizes people and creates good gentlemen.”

But Tsunga says that the rationale is more insidious.

“We are seeing post-independence African states trying to maintain these symbols of power and authority in the belief that it will help entrench themselves,” he said.

The curly horsehair wigs have been used in court since the 1600s, during the reign of Charles II, when they became a symbol of the British judicial system. Some historians say they were initially popularized by France’s King Louis XIV, who was trying to conceal his balding head.

By the 18th century, they were meant to distinguish judges and lawyers — and other members of the upper crust. Enter the word “bigwig” into the lexicon.

Other countries in the British Commonwealth, such as Australia and Canada, also inherited the wigs and robes but have moved toward removing them from courtrooms. An Australian chief justice last year demanded that barristers remove their wigs before addressing her.

“The abolition of wigs is all part of the progression towards a modern way,” said the chief justice, Marilyn Warren.

This year in Britain, the House of Commons lifted the requirement that clerks, who are experts in parliamentary law, wear wigs. John Bercow, the speaker, said the change would promote a “marginally less stuffy and forbidding image of this chamber.”

But aside from the wigs, African courts have adapted to a post-colonial context. New constitutions have been written. A new generation of judges has emerged. Even though some judiciaries have bent to political pressure, new legal systems are rooted in British common law but shaped by the traditions and cultures of their own countries.

In Kenya this month, the Supreme Court annulled the recent presidential election, a bold display of judicial independence that infuriated the sitting president.

In the Nairobi courtroom where the ruling was delivered, several lawyers wore their powdered wigs. Behind the bench, a row of men and women in red robes presided.

Maraga sat down before speaking, the sleeves of his black robe hanging over the bench.

“The greatness of a nation lies in its fidelity to its constitution,” he said, “and a strict adherence to the rule of law.”

http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/its-been-50-years-since-britain-left.html

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

you are right oo

says who?

Brymo and Asa given 3 months ultimatum to release a collabo
http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/brymo-and-asa-given-3-months-ultimatum.html


A twitter user with handle @Mrrightsng has given the duo of Brymo and Asa 3 months (90 days) to release a song together. He wrote: Dear @BrymOlawale and @Asa_official I am tired of hearing pon pon music this few days. I am giving both of you just 3 months (90 days) to give us a wonderful collabo. Don't get me wrong please,pon pon music is sweet,but it doesn't last. I need a song i can listen to forever.Dont fail. Both singers are considered best song writers in Nigerian music, but have never worked together before. Do you think the two singers should release a song together?

Lets hear your views
http://mrrightsng..com.ng/2017/12/brymo-and-asa-given-3-months-ultimatum.html