In a communique, MULAN said the refusal by the Nigerian Law School to allow a law graduate of the University of Ilorin, Firdaus Amasa, entrance into the venue of the call to bar ceremony recently in Abuja because she wore hijab was unlawful. Could you expatiate on this unlawfulness that you are talking about? What really is the position of the law on this matter?
By our communiqué, Muslim Lawyers’ Association of Nigeria (MULAN) took cognisance of the global discrimination, persecution and injustice perpetrated against Islam and Muslims despite the universal declaration of human rights and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of association. The Muslim lawyers were called upon to stand up against the evils in the society and promote the rule of law and encourage Muslims to strive to be aboveboard in their practice of Islam.
We also observed that MULAN, as an association and Muslims in general must be strategic in seeking redress for the violations of the rights of Muslims. In doing that, there is the need to adopt a collective approach to issues and we need to forge ahead as a united front.
We noted the irony in the case of Firdaus Amasa as an aspirant to the Bar. She had on her, not really a hijab, according to the pristine Islamic standard, but a mere scarf to cover her hair in deference to the regulations of the Council of Legal Education and yet, she was not called to Bar. We see that this is a challenge to Muslim lawyers and judges to rise up to the occasion to see that justice is done.
MULAN maintains that the position of the law remains as decided by the Court of Appeal in its judgement in the Provost, Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin and two others versus Bashirat Saliu and two others (CA/IL/49/2006); and Asiyah and others versus Lagos State government and others (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt 1535) 117, where the court declared that the ‘the use of hijab by female Muslim students constitutes an act of worship, hence the refusal to allow the appellants wear it on their uniform is a clear infraction of their right’. This remains the position of the law and it is unlawful to deprive female Muslims of putting on the hijab in government-owned institutions.
The association insists that Amasa’s courage in standing up for her rights and adhering to the tenets of her religion is commendable. The Council of Legal Education and other institutions should be aware of the diversity and peculiarities of Nigerians and not insist on outmoded conventions which add no value to contemporary trends in legal practice.
What is your personal conviction on this issue?
On a personal level, my take is that the fundamental rights of Firdaus Amasa was never considered when the marshals of the Nigerian Law School stopped her from entering the venue of the call to Bar because she was wearing hijab. This act of the Nigerian Law School is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, particularly Section 1 (1) and (2), Section 38 (1) and (2) and Section 42 (1), and in relation to Section 42 (3), hijab is not a restriction and I can’t see it to be so.
A court has observed that the courts have a duty, as provided by the constitution, to see that executive actions are in conformity with the fundamental rights of persons and to see that all organs of government observe the provisions of the constitution. The Nigerian Law School is bound by this decision as an institution under the government with the responsibility to train law students and to present such students that have passed their Bar final examination to the Body of Benchers for call to the Nigerian Bar.
Firdaus Amasa passed her Bar final examination and was cleared by the Nigerian Law School to have satisfied all the requirements that entitled her to be called to Bar but was never presented to the Body of Benchers for the simple reason that she had her hijab on her head before the wig and that she must remove it before she would be allowed entrance into the venue.
We were made to believe that the Nigerian Law School marshals at the gate to the venue asked Firdaus to remove her hijab but she did not, as she could not have her head open, being against the teachings of her religion. Firdaus was disregarded and was disrespected by the marshals of the Nigerian Law School and was discriminated against on the basis of her faith, contrary to constitutional provisions.
Let us not forget that the court in the case of Lafia Local Government versus Executive Government of Nasarawa State and ORS observed that a liberal approach must be adopted when interpreting the provisions of the constitution and especially the fundamental rights provisions.
Firdaus has all the right to practise her faith. It is her constitutional right, as provided for by Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The right to freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. Fundamental rights stand above ordinary laws of the land or any kind of policy, just like that of the Nigerian Law School. They are, in fact, antecedent to the political society itself. These fundamental rights have been described as the minimum living standard for civilised humanity.
Are you saying the Law School erred by its action?
Looking at the nature of the Nigerian Law School and what it stands for, vis-a-vis the position of the law, there is the need for the Law School to apologise to Nigerians in general and Firdaus Amasa in particular because what happened to her is far short of what is expected from the institution. Denying Amasa call to Bar on the basis of her hijab is not only unlawful but also unconstitutional.
The Nigerian Law School should be mindful of the decision in Asiyah and others versus Lagos State government and others (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt 1535) 117, where the court observed that the ‘the use of hijab by female Muslim students constitute an act of worship hence the refusal to allow the appellants wear it on their uniform is a clear infraction of their right’.
Your organisation praised what it called Amasa’s ‘courage and defiance’ in standing up for her rights and her religion but many see her action as a complete disregard for the authorities and hostile refusal to conform to accepted dress code of the Law School. Would you say Islam encourages this kind of open rebellion? Are there any factors, in the estimation of Islam, that make her action excusable?
The Nigerian Law School, for too long, have disregarded and refused to respect the rights of Muslim ladies to hijab or covering of their heads at the time of call. Many were forced by the institution to remove their hijab, scarf or whatever is used to cover the head. The Law School always insists that the wig be kept directly on the head.
Throughout the years, Muslim ladies have been suffering in silence, but Firdaus chose not to compromise her faith for the Law School rules in this aspect. This is why we commend her. We commend her courage for standing up against the Law School for her rights, in adherence to the tenets of her religion. Asking for her rights by insisting that what the Law School was asking of her was wrong cannot amount to rebellion.
But what happened to Amasa has been an age-long tradition of the institution…
The Nigerian Law School admits many Muslim female students annually. These students have to grapple with the dilemma of complying with Islamic dress code and at the same time abiding by the dress regulation in the school. As part of the official dress regulation at the Law School, they [female students] are required to expose their hair, neck and some parts of the legs during the compulsory law dinners, court attachment, law office attachment, lectures and other official outings. This is un-Islamic.
Islam is a complete way of life. It prescribes rules governing every aspect of the lives of its adherents, including the mode of dressing. This prescribed mode of dressing is important to the Muslims. The mode of dressing for Muslim women has been prescribed by the Islamic law, by the provisions of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Qur’an Chapter 24 Verse 31 says: ‘And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof, that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ father, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons or their slaves whom their right hand possess, or male servant free of physical needs, children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you, who believe, turn you all together towards Allah that ye attain bliss’.
Allah also told the Noble Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): ‘O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) that is most convenient that they should be known as such and not molested. And Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. (Qur’an Chapter 33 Verse 59)
In a Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Aisha, the Prophet’s wife (Allah be pleased with her), reported that Asmau, a daughter of Abu Bakr (her sister), came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and while there wore thin (transparent) clothes on her. He (the Prophet) reproached her and said: ‘O Asmau, when a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that any portion of her body remains exposed except this and this (he pointed at her face and palms)’. (Abu Dawud)
From the above verses of the Qur’an and the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), it is clear that a dress code has been prescribed for the Muslim women. The prescription requires the Muslim woman to put on the dress that covers all parts of her body except the face and the palms when she goes outside of her home.
As the Islamic code of dressing for Muslim women, the hijab is a commandment of Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him). A Muslim has no choice but to abide by the commandment. It is an obligatory, divine prescription. Therefore, refusal to comply with such a commandment amounts to a flagrant disobedience.
What would you advance as solution to the current situation involving Firdaus Amasa and how do you think the country can get past hijab crisis generally?
We have constituted a nine-man committee to look into the case of Firdaus Amasa. This committee is headed by the Second Vice President, M. T. Muhammed. The chairman of the committee briefed the National Executive Committee last Saturday in Katsina [Katsina State], that they would approach the Law School and the Council of Legal Education. Going to court on this issue will be the last option.
We gave the committee the mandate of doing all that is necessary to see that the Law School reconsiders its position with a view to working within the intendments of the provisions of the constitution. We would want all institutions, including the Nigerian Law School, to respect the fundamental rights of all citizens, including those of Firdaus Amasa.
and then