INDEED, what goes around comes
around! Criticisms and diverse opinions have continued pouring from the public
over the recent quagmire involving a student of the Nigerian Law School, Amasa
Firdaus that insisted on wearing Muslims’ hijab contrary to the policy of the
Council of Legal Education (CLE),
and as a result, was denied entry into the auditorium for the call-to-bar
ceremony. The development created factions in the bar; some emotionally backed
the student on account of the fundamental human rights especially Sections
38(1) and 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as
amended which provides for right to religion among others.
Others seemingly in
the majority vehemently objected, perched on the side of the Council insisting
that a formal dressing for call-to-bar ceremony is sacrosanct. The President of
the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), A.B. Mahmoud (SAN)
in particular received an overdose of criticisms from colleagues for standing
for the embattled student, arguing that Hijabs are permissible for lawyers in similar
convocations overseas.
Parochially, the judgment of Court of
Appeal in 2016 against Lagos State Government presided per Justice A.B. Gumel
which affirmed wearing of Hijabs in public schools would be in favour of the dramatis
personae; a judgment which the court never envisaged the decision could one day
affect the judiciary. Hence, a great lesson on fallacious decisions and
actions. By the appellate court’s verdict, students now have unfettered rights
to wear Hijabs in public schools that are distinct from missionary schools
pursuant to fundamental human right, and unconsciously, the court set a wrong
precedent forgetting that folks that live in glass houses do not throw stones. Incidentally,
the stones first landed on the bar. It’s therefore indicative that the
appellate decision may have to be challenged at the apex court for a clearer
position. Who takes the blame? Of course, the judiciary solely created the
catastrophe, interestingly, this time against itself. As a matter of fact, if
the blunder is not carefully revised, a religious bigot-practicing lawyer may
after this episode stand on the appellate decision to appear before a court
either on Hijab or perhaps, clergies in the Christendom that are lawyers on
religious apparels. Indeed, this is not a good development for the judiciary.
On the other hand, looking at the
quandary holistically, precisely away from the appellate court’s commission or
omission, the action taken by the CLE
in refusing entry without formal dressing was apt and philosophical. This
position is logical on account that the law school is exclusively the training
place for practicing lawyers under the Nigerian Legal System, and customarily,
to practice in Nigeria requires dressing code before the court unlike in the
United Kingdom and United States of America referred to by the NBA President.
The call-to-bar is the final stage for assessment, and therefore logical that students
endorsed for practice should appear professionally fit in sync with the ethics
of the profession to be presented to the Chief Justice of Nigeria for the
needful. As a profession, legal practitioners have stipulated ethics, ethos and
etiquettes which include dressing code in the court.
Obviously, subjecting the matter to
religion is disappointedly, completely out of it. This is because the embattled
student wasn’t clogged by the Council from practicing a religion of choice even
in the law school, rather, there was attempt to allow religion substantially interfere
with professional ethics. It is a trite rule that professional bodies established
by law have rules and regulations guiding them. In the Bible, for example, it
is encoded as a fundamental principle in Matthew 22:21, “render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”. This was
laid down in resolving a similar dilemma among the people on rules to keep. Sensitively,
the judgment of the Appeal Court albeit flawed, nonetheless, a professional
body like law alongside law school cannot competently be included in the
category of public schools for freewill dressing and attires. In the primary,
secondary and university education, the judgment may manageably survive for
some time but unrealistic for the law school that is for vocational training.
It is akin to relying on the same fundamental human right to question a
management for denying its member of staff entry into a factory without
designated dressing pattern.
On the way forward, religious bigots
should draw a red line between a profession and religion. The right to practice
any religion, though fundamental in the constitution is clearly not to the
extent of overriding professional ethics. Can the two coexist without
prejudice? Emphatically yes. Simply, wear all desirable religious apparels and costumes
everywhere except during conventions by professional bodies like
call-to-bar-ceremony. This is the marginal note of the apothegm, ‘live and let
live’. It is equally imperative to note that the freedom guaranteed by fundamental
human-rights doesn’t accord unrestrained liberty. To belong to a professional
body has a price, and this is, on the other hand, where the freedom to belong
to associations or professions is determinable by individuals. In Nigeria, to
become a practicing lawyer, to garb wigs alongside gown is inevitable and the
only remedy is to terminate legal studies at the universities as academic
lawyer. But for practicing lawyers, professional ethics which include dressing
code is unavoidable.
Umegboro, a public
affairs analyst wrote from Lagos, and could be reached: umegborocarl@gmail.com (0705 710 1974 SMS only)
No comments:
Post a Comment