Following a court ruling that allowed female National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members to wear skirts for religious reasons, opinions have been divided. While some have hailed the decision as a victory for women’s rights, others have warned of policy slippage.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa ruled in a June 13 ruling that the NYSC policy requiring pants only for female corps members was a violation of the constitutional rights to human dignity and freedom of religion, according to our correspondent.
In particular, she defended the right of female corps members to wear skirts if they do so for really religious reasons.
In an interview with NAN, Mrs. Juliet Ogunsaya, who served in Enugu state, said she thought the ruling was fascinating and praised the plaintiffs’ bravery.
“I think the case and ruling are fascinating, and I’m happy the plaintiffs prevailed. I also respect their bravery in taking on the NYSC.”
“Especially since they have allegedly experienced humiliation, embarrassment, and harassment.” Personally, I think the NYSC should no longer be required; instead, it should be optional for individuals who choose to participate, as it has outlived its initial purpose.
Nonetheless, I believe that since it is a paramilitary plan, it is crucial to wear the proper uniform to avoid it turning into a free-for-all.
She remarked, “On a lighter note, I wonder how the ladies in my time would have handled the physical exercises, like climbing a rope-line while wearing skirts.”
StellaMaris Akubuike also voiced her worries over the ruling, citing the NYSC’s establishment by an act.
“The ruling bothers me because the NYSC’s establishment and dress code are supported by law.
Since the NYSC is paramilitary, following its dress code is sacred and should be respected rather than breaking the law.
“How is mountaineering supposed to be done, similar to our days at Agwu camp, the early morning workouts, the rope climbing activities during Man ‘O’ War, or even the match pass-on skirt?
“It is practically impossible unless one has chosen not to engage in any of the activities on camp, which also goes against the goals of NYSC,” she stated.
She said that the girls’ humiliation was unfortunate and that breaking the law always has repercussions.
Read Also: Gombe JAMB Office Reinvents Workforce Strategy Through Comprehensive Capacity Building
Even if I oppose the girls’ humiliation, they invited it by breaking the law in the first place.
“You should have understood what to expect and followed it when you arrived at camp.
“They say obedience is better than sacrifice, and even the religious faith they are defending does not tolerate disobedience,” she remarked.
As the program is paramilitary in nature, Mr. Monday Ijeh believes it would be abusive to require a woman to engage in it while wearing a skirt because it won’t protect her from the weather.
Mr. Dominic Bassey is worried that the ruling would cause a lot of misunderstandings about the NYSC dress code going forward.
“The scheme’s cohesiveness may break down if several uniform variations are permitted.
“What if a different group decides that their tradition forbids skirts but permits tying wrappers instead, given that skirts are permitted today for religious reasons?” Although I admire the plaintiffs’ bravery, I believe that the NYSC needs a complete revamp of the overall plan; the uniform is not the issue.
He claimed that the ruling marked a sea change in Nigerian law and that it demonstrated a growing harmony between the defense of individual religious and human rights and institutionally consistent policy.
He stated, “Only time will tell how the NYSC will implement the judgment and whether similar challenges may arise in other public institutions.”
According to our correspondent, on June 13, the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the NYSC’s decision to forbid female corps members from wearing skirts in respect for their religious convictions was unconstitutional and a violation of their fundamental right to freedom of religion.
In her ruling, Justice Yilwa found that the NYSC had infringed upon the constitutionally protected rights of women to human dignity and freedom of religion by requiring them to wear trousers as the only permissible uniform.
Due to legal similarities, the cases—which were filed independently by Miss Blessing Ogunjobi and Miss Vivian Ayuba, two former corps members—were combined.
Referencing Deuteronomy 22:5, the petitioners said in the suits designated FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020, respectively, that being forced to wear pants was against their Christian beliefs.
They took the phrase to mean that women were not allowed to wear clothing that was traditionally associated with men.
Under Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the court determined that the NYSC’s insistence on trousers violated the petitioners’ ability to express their religion.
The court determined that it also exposed them to degrading treatment and excessive harassment.
In both cases, Justice Yilwa made the same decisions and approved all of the applicants’ requests for relief: “A declaration that the refusal to allow skirts for religious purposes is unconstitutional.”
An order requiring the NYSC to acknowledge and allow skirts for female corps members who have legitimate religious objections.
“A directive requiring the NYSC to recall the impacted former corps members and issue certificates to each of them in accordance with that recall.”
Additionally, the court ruled that the applicants’ fundamental right to freedom of religion and freedom to practice it was clearly violated by the harassment, humiliation, and embarrassment they endured at the hands of the respondents’ agents.
Each applicant was given ₦500,000 in damages by the judge for the infringement of their fundamental rights.
The court characterized the ₦500,000 award as appropriate under the circumstances, despite the fact that both applicants had sought ₦10 million in damages.
The ruling also declared that it was religious discrimination to deny the applicants a chance to finish their service because of their clothing.
The applicants were humiliated and embarrassed as a result of the responses’ behavior.
Justice Yilwa stated, “This is a clear violation of their fundamental rights.”
The applicants claimed that the NYSC had breached their fundamental rights to freedom of religion, which they attempted to enforce in their individual lawsuits.
NYSC and its Director-General are included as respondents in the suits FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020.
Their application was filed in accordance with Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Order 11 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.
Additionally, the court sought the following reliefs under its inherent jurisdiction, as well as Articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: “A declaration of the court that the respondent’s refusal to recognize and allow skirts as part of the NYSC uniform is a breach of the applicant’s right as contained in Section 38(1) of 1999 Constitution (as Amended), as well as Deuteronomy 22 vs. 5 of the Bible and a misreading of 2 Schedule Article 1 (I)(a) of the NYSC Bye Laws 1993.”
In accordance with Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the court has declared that the applicant’s usage of skirts in the NYSC system is a part of her fundamental rights to freedom of religion and the freedom to express that freedom in practice and observance.
“A declaration stating that the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of religion and freedom to practice it, as well as the fundamental right to human dignity and degrading treatment, were clearly violated by the harassment, embarrassment, and humiliation that the applicant endured at the hands of the respondents’ agents.”
“A court order requiring the respondents, their servants, agents, privies, or anybody else called to recognize, allow, and provide skirt for the applicant or any female wishing to use it in accordance with Deuteronomy 22:5 and Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)” “Damages in the amount of N10 million and such further order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
