Ban On Hijab: Full Panel Of Appeal Court To Hear MSSN Appeal Against Lagos

Ban On Hijab: Full Panel Of Appeal Court To Hear MSSN Appeal Against Lagos

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal yesterday adjourned the appeal filed by some muslim students against the judgment of the state high court, which upheld the ban on the wearing of Hijab (Muslim head scarf) in public primary and secondary schools in the state to enable a full panel of the court to sit on the matter.

A three-man panel presided over by Justice Amina Augie, which communicated the information to the parties in the matter on Tuesday, stated that it important for a five-man panel of the court to hear the appeal because it is a constitutional matter and also very sensitive.

Justice Grace Onyeabo had in a judgment delivered on October 17, 2014 held that the the restriction placed on the use of the Hijab in primary and secondary public schools in the state is not discriminatory and did not breach Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution as claimed by the students.  

The Registered Trustees of the Muslim Society of Nigeria (MSSN) had dragged the Lagos state government to court over the restriction of the use of the Hijab on or outside the premises of any educational institution in the state, on the ground that it violates their fundamental human rights, is wrongful and unconstitutional .

The MSSN had filed the case against the State Government along with two pupils, who were then 12 year old, Miss Asiyat Abdulkareem and Miss Maryam Oyeniyi, students of Atunrashe Junior High School, Surulere, Lagos State.

They were joined in the suit as claimants through their fathers – Alhaji Owolabi Abdulkareem and Suleiman Oyeniyi.

The defendants in the suit are the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, and Commissioner for Education and Commissioner for Home Affairs and Culture.

When the matter came up yesterday for hearing, Justice Augie stated that the appeal is on the rights of the appellants to wear hijab to school in line with Quranic injunction but because it is a constitutional matter it must be heard by a five-man panel of the court.

Justice Augie also said, "We are a three-man panel, and more importantly, an all Muslim panel and if the three justices went ahead to hear the appeal, it could raise issues of bias.

"Any way the decision goes, we would be under fire. We're protecting ourselves as much as we're protecting you.

"It's a very sensitive matter that will most likely still get to the Supreme Court," the court held.

Justice Augie, therefore, said because of the constitutional nature of the appeal and in the interest of Justice, hearing of the appeal will be adjourn to enable counsel to the appellant apply to the President of the Court Appeal to constitute a full panel of the court.

Taking the hint of the court, the appellants’ counsel, Chief Gani Adetola-Kazeem SAN acknowledged that the appeal is sensitive in nature and would most likely get to the Supreme Court."

Adetola-Kazeem urged the court to make the record of proceedings available to enable him write to the President of the Court of Appeal.

It will be recalled that the government had banned the use of Hijab on the argument that it was not part of the approved school uniform for pupils.

Not happy with the ban, the students filed the suit on May 27, 2013, seeking redress and asked the court to declare the ban as a violation of their rights to freedom of thought, religion and education.

In her judgment, Onyeabor held that the prohibition of the wearing of Hijab over school uniforms within and outside the premises of public schools was not discriminatory.

According to her, the ban does not violate sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution as claimed by the plaintiffs.

The judge said Section 10 of the Constitution made Nigeria a secular state and that government must maintain neutrality at all times.

Onyeabor said the government therefore had a duty to preserve the secular nature of the institutions concerned as argued by the Lagos State Solicitor-General, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN).

She noted that since the public schools were being funded by the government, it was therefore competent to issue dress codes and other guidelines to the students.

According to her, the use of uniforms engenders uniformity and encourages students to pursue their mutual academic aspirations without recourse to religious or any other affiliations.

The judge observed that the uniformity sought by the government in the issuance of the dress code would be destroyed, should the prayers of the plaintiffs be granted.