“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that
conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the
penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the
community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest
respect for law.”
— MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR.
There is always that appointed time when rules should be
challenged. In the event that the rules birth injustice, then the
best way to militate against such extant legislation is by civil
disobedience. If there is one scribble worth penning, it remains
the applauding activism of a moslem – Amasa Firdaus. It is no
longer news that Firdaus, a law graduate from the University of
Ilorin, was denied entry into the International Conference Centre
situate at Abuja on the 13th day of December. The
event was one that law students crave to witness as it is
their call to bar ceremony – without
which they would at no cost be addressed as lawyers. She wore her
Hijab as against the rules and refused to take it off; she went
against the body of benchers that Wednesday. The bitter truth is
that she did not err. Ratiocinations infra will give reasons
why.
This writer is not unaware of the fact that
the legal Practitioners Act provided for
the Body of Benchers; and that this body has provided the code of
conduct for law school, is not strange music to the ear of this
writer. A close perusal of the Code of
Conduct, however, seems to be silent on what a law student
is expected to wear during the ceremony. Arguments that convention
could suffice is not one this writer has a grouse with. But in the
event that an age-long convention kicks the scrotum of the grund
norm, then we need only commonsense to understand the urgent need
to stop the kicks before it becomes a matter of orchiectomy.
Arguments in favour of the Body of Benchers have flown up in the
air like the green witch with her mop stick, and having gulped the
creaminess of their arguments, there had been due cause to sick out
all of it because it is malapropos to devour the succulent orange
and chew its green clothing. So the question remains, what
age long convention deserved no kneels? A convention that
says Muslims should not wear Hijab on their call to
bar ceremony suffers any good reason. Many based
arguments on Section 10 CFRN, 1999 and
this writer has cried a million times.
Section 10 CFRN, 1999 provides
that “the Government of the Federation or of a state shall
not adopt any religion as state religion.” How this
proviso becomes necessary to her struggle is amazing. Whether her
act was for the struggle to Islamize Nigeria is not one that can be
intelligibly confirmed as accurate. It is far-reaching to arrive at
such conclusion even, as we would need to first become gifted with
the vision of Teresias or experts at phrenology. If arguments
having the above section were raised to appreciate a singular
reason that the legal profession is not a slave to any religion
being that it is secular, then it should be stressed that such a
position is not novel. What becomes novel is tying it to the Hijab
controversy. Is it to be believed that the convention that Muslims
wear no Hijab to their call to bar
ceremony is to reflect secularity of the noble
profession? Whoever thought of such ludicrous pooh-pooh idea may
have read the Constitution with a bleary eye to have
skipped Section 38 CFRN, 1999. Before
throwing my legs into the haven the latter section promises, it is
not unnecessary to say that the conventional tradition should not
be given safe landing into 2018 for few
reasons: 1. If the law allows for female
Muslims to wear Hijab to law lectures at tertiary institutions, law
school, dinners, then on what premise should the Hijab not be worn
on their ceremony day? 2. Since female Muslim lawyers wear Hijabs
to court after their call to bar ceremony, there is logically no
sense in depriving same Muslims from wearing same during their
ceremony day.
It has become necessary to have the black prints
of section 38 (1) CFRN, 1999. It has
that “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.” This writer does not feign ignorance at the
popular saying that all rights are not absolute
– its qualification will be turned to in other
paragraphs. If we are to marry the action of Amasa Firdaus to the
wording of the section (supra), we may have to nod approvingly when
said that her refusal to take off her Hijab was for no other reason
than her devoutness to the Nigerian Constitution and the Holy
Quran. The constitution said in section
10 that Nigeria shall remain a secular state and
because it recognizes the diverse religions in Nigeria, it
safeguards their existence to avoid extinction of beliefs of
Nigerian people. A thorough reading of the above proviso shows that
the constitution allows for freedom of religion,
freedom to practice same in public places,
freedom to manifest and propagate religion, right to observe
it. What this means is that a Christian is free to
practice Christianity, and a Muslim is free to do same. In public
places include universities, law school, market places, and malls,
social gatherings, to mention a few.
It may not be known to many but the Muslim faith is such that a
female Muslim who is a believer should not display her beauty and
ornaments except in the presence of her parents, husband, children,
fellow women in the faith, family, slaves whom their right hand
possesses. This is the summary of the 30th and
31st verse of the 24th Sura of the
Holy Quran. Why it is to be observed diligently is because the veil
is a symbol of dressing modestly as was expressly stressed in the
same Sura of the Holy Quran. Why it cannot be departed from is
because the prayer offered at the completion of the recitation of
the Holy Quran is one that each Muslim lives by or aims to live by.
It provides as follows:
“O Allah have mercy on me with (the blessings) of the Great
Qur’an. Make it for me a Model, Light, Guidance and Mercy. O my
Allah remind me whatever I have forgotten of it and teach me what I
do not know of it. Grant me its recitation in the watches of the
night and in the hours of day. O lord of the worlds make it an
Authority for me for my benefit. Amen.”
The ending lines of the prayer has the word ‘authority’
,hence the reason why a veil cannot be done away with except
for reasons that will be highlighted later on. It will matter to
drop two decided cases that favours the Hijab controversy – in as
much as the cases were not dwelling on the conventional attire for
the bar ceremony, its holding covers the field nonetheless. The
unreported case of THE PROVOST, KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION, ILORIN&2 ORS V. BASHIRAT SALIU, only serves
as a troubleshooter to every verbal ruckus as far as a veil is
concerned. According to Massoud Abdul Rahman Oredola JCA, in the
case supra, “The right of the respondents to wear their HIJAB veil
within the school campus and INDEED ANYWHERE else is adequately
protected under our laws. Human rights recognize [sic] and protects
religious rights. S.38 of the 1999 CFRN guaranteed freedom of
religion to all and sundry. Thus, things that lawfully constitute
OPEN MANIFESTATION, PROPAGATION, WORSHIP, TEACHING, PRACTICE and
OBSERVANCE of the said religion are equally and by extension
similarly guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Indeed the
Hijab, Niqab or Burqa, being part of Islamic code of dressing and
by whatever standard a dignified or vividly decent one cannot be
taken away by any other than the constitution.” This case supports
what has been said in the above paragraphs. A case that adopted the
ruling above was Sheikh Oyinwola & ors v. The Gov
of Osun State.
Having agreed that Section 38(1) has
its qualifications, it is good the part of the constitution that so
limits the right of religion be underscored.
Reading Section 45(1)(a)&(b)CFRN, 1999,
it will be gleaned from its wordings that “Nothing in sections
37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the constitution shall invalidate any law
that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society – (a) in the
interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality
or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights
and freedom of other persons.” What must not be done is
to commence the reading of this section with the aim of stopping
at reasonably justifiable in a democratic
society since what follows it stands as the
yardstick upon which the justifiability should be tested – in other
words, a & b shows specificity of
the constitution. Where veil was not allowed temporarily in the
country was during the high rise of the Boko Haram insurgency where
the insurgents wrapped their ugly heads around a black scarf to
perpetrate dark-hearted crimes – this is a typical example
of interest of defence. The wearing of veil
signifies modesty and as such does not offend public morality which
preaches decency; it also does not offend public order which
preaches moderation. Until we start seeing or hearing of the
necessity for Muslims to give up on the wearing of HIJAB because of
health concerns, the right to wearing veils by Muslim sisters is
well within the law and cannot be broken by a convention that was
inspired by legal superstition and excessive symbolism unknown to
first world countries. Submitted therefore is that this section
does not throw stones at the tinted glass of Muslims
wearing a black scarf.
Arguments that have entered many nostrils which obviously reek
of spoilt stew are that if reverend sisters can do away with their
white veil and attend the ceremony, Amasa Firdaus has no claim.
Some have gone as far as duplicating banters that if Hijab will be
allowed then traditional worshippers should dress in their regalia
to the ceremony. These arguments are faulty to the extent that it
hangs in one corner arousing a religious war that was most
definitely not envisaged by Amasa Firdaus. This writer is not
oblivious of the fact that nuns wear veil as a symbol of
consecration to God and as a reflection of being abstemious. This
writer is not also unaware of the truth that many churches have
given up on hair covering as some reasoned that ‘a spiritual shift’
occurred. As Femi once said, “you cannot force your opinion down my
throat”, it needs be meteorically watered here that the Faith of
the nuns is sacral and ever respected, and so is the Moslem Faith –
by implication, none of these faiths can be used as a measuring
tube for either of them or any other religion in Nigeria. That
said, it should be penned also that those arguing for traditional
religions should please go ahead to bring authorities that imprints
attires ‘they’ are to wear publicly, everywhere and anywhere.
Firdaus Amasa’s action merely challenged a rule that did not sink
well with her religion; it does not mean she expects Islam to be
superior to all others; rather she wants that the constitution be
complied with – this does not affect the secularity of the law. For
the love of knowledge, the stats of 2016 records that 0.8% form
people of other religion in Nigeria which makes it inconsequential
if placed side by side with the 47.3% practitioners of Islam, the
30% protestants, 10.0% Catholics, unspecified Christians of 10.8%,
and 0.5% other Christians. Idol worshippers are fast becoming
Islamized or birthed into Christendom; some others that find it
difficult to adjust to Islam and Christianity embraces paganism –
if the mental picture drawn here as regards other
religion appear as jargons, then treat as by the
way.
The spate occurrence that has witnessed Nigeria drink from
the copy and paste bowl of the British
is one tightly glued to a rigid and familiar love-hate admiration
of ancient thralldom. We have virtually embraced every aspect of
the British legal orientation like faithful sheep eager to feed
from the accommodating palms of a shepherd. On the matter of dress
code, Rule 6(b) of the Rule of
Professional Conduct for the legal profession here in Nigeria
provides inter alia that while the court is in session, a lawyer
should not assume an undignified posture and should not remove his
wig without the judge’s permission – this is to avoid unnecessary
attention to oneself. It is no news that we swallowed as pills the
manner of dressing used in England and though this writer is not
against a wig and gown, does it not trouble a sane mind that even
founders of the age-long practice are giving up on it and allowing
the wig and gown only in criminal cases – the reason is fair, the
lawyers choose to maintain an unidentifiable identity during top
profile criminal cases. Now, the Nigerian Law School Code of
Conduct provided for dress code only during the stay in Law School.
It did not provide for penalties when dress codes are not met yet
Firdaus Amasa was given a kick too hard at the discretion of body
of benchers not eager to hear her twists and resolutions. She wore
her Hijab and had a wig on her head. It remains two
thoughts, are conventions older and weightier than
provisions of the
constitution? Or are Hijabs too
filthy on such a ceremony?
The second question is easy to answer. Of course it knows no
filth except unwashed for months – still, this is no yardstick to
continue in such convention limpidly lacking merit. To the former
question, we keep being choked with cold belabour
that rules are rules. Who says rules are
not meant to be broken. Intelligibly, she resorted to the
constitution and made a valid claim. The grund norm beats any other
legislation, let alone a worn-out convention in need of grease, and
as such that convention must lick the sacral feet of the law of our
land vide Sections 1(3) CFRN which has
that a law inconsistent with the constitution shall be null and
void to the level of its inconsistency.
This is not a time to becloud our heads with sentiments. This is
not a time to begin to trade religious insults as this remains a
struggle for justice and not supremacy of a religion. Firdaus broke
no law, she civilly disobeyed and we now water down her intrepidity
equating her status to a raca or an unwise youth. She spoke the
bitter truth; the body of benchers did not listen.
@Legal Watchmen OKOCHA
OBED
“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that
conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the
penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the
community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest
respect for law.”
— MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR.
There is always that appointed time when rules should be
challenged. In the event that the rules birth injustice, then the
best way to militate against such extant legislation is by civil
disobedience. If there is one scribble worth penning, it remains
the applauding activism of a moslem – Amasa Firdaus. It is no
longer news that Firdaus, a law graduate from the University of
Ilorin, was denied entry into the International Conference Centre
situate at Abuja on the 13th day of December. The
event was one that law students crave to witness as it is
their call to bar ceremony – without
which they would at no cost be addressed as lawyers. She wore her
Hijab as against the rules and refused to take it off; she went
against the body of benchers that Wednesday. The bitter truth is
that she did not err. Ratiocinations infra will give reasons
why.
This writer is not unaware of the fact that
the legal Practitioners Act provided for
the Body of Benchers; and that this body has provided the code of
conduct for law school, is not strange music to the ear of this
writer. A close perusal of the Code of
Conduct, however, seems to be silent on what a law student
is expected to wear during the ceremony. Arguments that convention
could suffice is not one this writer has a grouse with. But in the
event that an age-long convention kicks the scrotum of the grund
norm, then we need only commonsense to understand the urgent need
to stop the kicks before it becomes a matter of orchiectomy.
Arguments in favour of the Body of Benchers have flown up in the
air like the green witch with her mop stick, and having gulped the
creaminess of their arguments, there had been due cause to sick out
all of it because it is malapropos to devour the succulent orange
and chew its green clothing. So the question remains, what
age long convention deserved no kneels? A convention that
says Muslims should not wear Hijab on their call to
bar ceremony suffers any good reason. Many based
arguments on Section 10 CFRN, 1999 and
this writer has cried a million times.
Section 10 CFRN, 1999 provides
that “the Government of the Federation or of a state shall
not adopt any religion as state religion.” How this
proviso becomes necessary to her struggle is amazing. Whether her
act was for the struggle to Islamize Nigeria is not one that can be
intelligibly confirmed as accurate. It is far-reaching to arrive at
such conclusion even, as we would need to first become gifted with
the vision of Teresias or experts at phrenology. If arguments
having the above section were raised to appreciate a singular
reason that the legal profession is not a slave to any religion
being that it is secular, then it should be stressed that such a
position is not novel. What becomes novel is tying it to the Hijab
controversy. Is it to be believed that the convention that Muslims
wear no Hijab to their call to bar
ceremony is to reflect secularity of the noble
profession? Whoever thought of such ludicrous pooh-pooh idea may
have read the Constitution with a bleary eye to have
skipped Section 38 CFRN, 1999. Before
throwing my legs into the haven the latter section promises, it is
not unnecessary to say that the conventional tradition should not
be given safe landing into 2018 for few
reasons: 1. If the law allows for female
Muslims to wear Hijab to law lectures at tertiary institutions, law
school, dinners, then on what premise should the Hijab not be worn
on their ceremony day? 2. Since female Muslim lawyers wear Hijabs
to court after their call to bar ceremony, there is logically no
sense in depriving same Muslims from wearing same during their
ceremony day.
It has become necessary to have the black prints
of section 38 (1) CFRN, 1999. It has
that “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.” This writer does not feign ignorance at the
popular saying that all rights are not absolute
– its qualification will be turned to in other
paragraphs. If we are to marry the action of Amasa Firdaus to the
wording of the section (supra), we may have to nod approvingly when
said that her refusal to take off her Hijab was for no other reason
than her devoutness to the Nigerian Constitution and the Holy
Quran. The constitution said in section
10 that Nigeria shall remain a secular state and
because it recognizes the diverse religions in Nigeria, it
safeguards their existence to avoid extinction of beliefs of
Nigerian people. A thorough reading of the above proviso shows that
the constitution allows for freedom of religion,
freedom to practice same in public places,
freedom to manifest and propagate religion, right to observe
it. What this means is that a Christian is free to
practice Christianity, and a Muslim is free to do same. In public
places include universities, law school, market places, and malls,
social gatherings, to mention a few.
It may not be known to many but the Muslim faith is such that a
female Muslim who is a believer should not display her beauty and
ornaments except in the presence of her parents, husband, children,
fellow women in the faith, family, slaves whom their right hand
possesses. This is the summary of the 30th and
31st verse of the 24th Sura of the
Holy Quran. Why it is to be observed diligently is because the veil
is a symbol of dressing modestly as was expressly stressed in the
same Sura of the Holy Quran. Why it cannot be departed from is
because the prayer offered at the completion of the recitation of
the Holy Quran is one that each Muslim lives by or aims to live by.
It provides as follows:
“O Allah have mercy on me with (the blessings) of the Great
Qur’an. Make it for me a Model, Light, Guidance and Mercy. O my
Allah remind me whatever I have forgotten of it and teach me what I
do not know of it. Grant me its recitation in the watches of the
night and in the hours of day. O lord of the worlds make it an
Authority for me for my benefit. Amen.”
The ending lines of the prayer has the word ‘authority’
,hence the reason why a veil cannot be done away with except
for reasons that will be highlighted later on. It will matter to
drop two decided cases that favours the Hijab controversy – in as
much as the cases were not dwelling on the conventional attire for
the bar ceremony, its holding covers the field nonetheless. The
unreported case of THE PROVOST, KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION, ILORIN&2 ORS V. BASHIRAT SALIU, only serves
as a troubleshooter to every verbal ruckus as far as a veil is
concerned. According to Massoud Abdul Rahman Oredola JCA, in the
case supra, “The right of the respondents to wear their HIJAB veil
within the school campus and INDEED ANYWHERE else is adequately
protected under our laws. Human rights recognize [sic] and protects
religious rights. S.38 of the 1999 CFRN guaranteed freedom of
religion to all and sundry. Thus, things that lawfully constitute
OPEN MANIFESTATION, PROPAGATION, WORSHIP, TEACHING, PRACTICE and
OBSERVANCE of the said religion are equally and by extension
similarly guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Indeed the
Hijab, Niqab or Burqa, being part of Islamic code of dressing and
by whatever standard a dignified or vividly decent one cannot be
taken away by any other than the constitution.” This case supports
what has been said in the above paragraphs. A case that adopted the
ruling above was Sheikh Oyinwola & ors v. The Gov
of Osun State.
Having agreed that Section 38(1) has
its qualifications, it is good the part of the constitution that so
limits the right of religion be underscored.
Reading Section 45(1)(a)&(b)CFRN, 1999,
it will be gleaned from its wordings that “Nothing in sections
37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the constitution shall invalidate any law
that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society – (a) in the
interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality
or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights
and freedom of other persons.” What must not be done is
to commence the reading of this section with the aim of stopping
at reasonably justifiable in a democratic
society since what follows it stands as the
yardstick upon which the justifiability should be tested – in other
words, a & b shows specificity of
the constitution. Where veil was not allowed temporarily in the
country was during the high rise of the Boko Haram insurgency where
the insurgents wrapped their ugly heads around a black scarf to
perpetrate dark-hearted crimes – this is a typical example
of interest of defence. The wearing of veil
signifies modesty and as such does not offend public morality which
preaches decency; it also does not offend public order which
preaches moderation. Until we start seeing or hearing of the
necessity for Muslims to give up on the wearing of HIJAB because of
health concerns, the right to wearing veils by Muslim sisters is
well within the law and cannot be broken by a convention that was
inspired by legal superstition and excessive symbolism unknown to
first world countries. Submitted therefore is that this section
does not throw stones at the tinted glass of Muslims
wearing a black scarf.
Arguments that have entered many nostrils which obviously reek
of spoilt stew are that if reverend sisters can do away with their
white veil and attend the ceremony, Amasa Firdaus has no claim.
Some have gone as far as duplicating banters that if Hijab will be
allowed then traditional worshippers should dress in their regalia
to the ceremony. These arguments are faulty to the extent that it
hangs in one corner arousing a religious war that was most
definitely not envisaged by Amasa Firdaus. This writer is not
oblivious of the fact that nuns wear veil as a symbol of
consecration to God and as a reflection of being abstemious. This
writer is not also unaware of the truth that many churches have
given up on hair covering as some reasoned that ‘a spiritual shift’
occurred. As Femi once said, “you cannot force your opinion down my
throat”, it needs be meteorically watered here that the Faith of
the nuns is sacral and ever respected, and so is the Moslem Faith –
by implication, none of these faiths can be used as a measuring
tube for either of them or any other religion in Nigeria. That
said, it should be penned also that those arguing for traditional
religions should please go ahead to bring authorities that imprints
attires ‘they’ are to wear publicly, everywhere and anywhere.
Firdaus Amasa’s action merely challenged a rule that did not sink
well with her religion; it does not mean she expects Islam to be
superior to all others; rather she wants that the constitution be
complied with – this does not affect the secularity of the law. For
the love of knowledge, the stats of 2016 records that 0.8% form
people of other religion in Nigeria which makes it inconsequential
if placed side by side with the 47.3% practitioners of Islam, the
30% protestants, 10.0% Catholics, unspecified Christians of 10.8%,
and 0.5% other Christians. Idol worshippers are fast becoming
Islamized or birthed into Christendom; some others that find it
difficult to adjust to Islam and Christianity embraces paganism –
if the mental picture drawn here as regards other
religion appear as jargons, then treat as by the
way.
The spate occurrence that has witnessed Nigeria drink from
the copy and paste bowl of the British
is one tightly glued to a rigid and familiar love-hate admiration
of ancient thralldom. We have virtually embraced every aspect of
the British legal orientation like faithful sheep eager to feed
from the accommodating palms of a shepherd. On the matter of dress
code, Rule 6(b) of the Rule of
Professional Conduct for the legal profession here in Nigeria
provides inter alia that while the court is in session, a lawyer
should not assume an undignified posture and should not remove his
wig without the judge’s permission – this is to avoid unnecessary
attention to oneself. It is no news that we swallowed as pills the
manner of dressing used in England and though this writer is not
against a wig and gown, does it not trouble a sane mind that even
founders of the age-long practice are giving up on it and allowing
the wig and gown only in criminal cases – the reason is fair, the
lawyers choose to maintain an unidentifiable identity during top
profile criminal cases. Now, the Nigerian Law School Code of
Conduct provided for dress code only during the stay in Law School.
It did not provide for penalties when dress codes are not met yet
Firdaus Amasa was given a kick too hard at the discretion of body
of benchers not eager to hear her twists and resolutions. She wore
her Hijab and had a wig on her head. It remains two
thoughts, are conventions older and weightier than
provisions of the
constitution? Or are Hijabs too
filthy on such a ceremony?
The second question is easy to answer. Of course it knows no
filth except unwashed for months – still, this is no yardstick to
continue in such convention limpidly lacking merit. To the former
question, we keep being choked with cold belabour
that rules are rules. Who says rules are
not meant to be broken. Intelligibly, she resorted to the
constitution and made a valid claim. The grund norm beats any other
legislation, let alone a worn-out convention in need of grease, and
as such that convention must lick the sacral feet of the law of our
land vide Sections 1(3) CFRN which has
that a law inconsistent with the constitution shall be null and
void to the level of its inconsistency.
This is not a time to becloud our heads with sentiments. This is
not a time to begin to trade religious insults as this remains a
struggle for justice and not supremacy of a religion. Firdaus broke
no law, she civilly disobeyed and we now water down her intrepidity
equating her status to a raca or an unwise youth. She spoke the
bitter truth; the body of benchers did not listen.
@Legal Watchmen OKOCHA
OBED
Read more https://nairalaw.com/the-bitter-truths-a-walk-into-firdaus-controversy/