Mixed reactions have trailed a court judgment permitting female National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), members to wear skirts for religious reasons, with supporters hailing it as a win for rights and critics warning policy erosion.
The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that in a judgment delivered on June 13, Justice Hauwa Yilwa declared that the NYSC policy mandating trousers only for female corps members violated the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and human dignity.
She specifically upheld that female corps members who, for sincere religious reasons, wish to wear skirts should be allowed to do so.
Mrs Juliet Ogunsaya who told NAN that she served in Enugu state said that she found the judgment quite interesting and commended the courage of the plaintiffs.
“I find the case and judgment really interesting and I admire the courage of the plaintiffs to take on such an institution as the NYSC and I’m glad they won.
“Especially because they allegedly have been harassed, embarrassed and humiliated.
“Personally, I believe that the NYSC has outlived its original objective, and as such should no longer be mandatory but voluntary for those who want to.
“However, I feel that because it is a paramilitary scheme, it is important to adhere to an appropriate uniform, lest it becomes a free for all.
“On a lighter note, I wonder how the ladies during my time would have managed the physical exercises, including climbing a rope-line while wearing skirts,” she said.
Also, StellaMaris Akubuike expressed concerns over the judgment particularly since there was an act that established the NYSC.
“The judgment is not sitting well with me due to the fact that there is a law backing the formation of the NYSC as well as its dress code.
“The NYSC is para-military and the the sacredness of its dress code should be adhered to rather than taking laws into ones hands by going against the rules.
“How is one expected to go mountaineering just like during our days at Agwu camp, the early morning exercise, the Man ‘O’ War activities of rope climbing or even the match pass on skirt?
“It is practically impossible except if one has decided not to participate in any of the activities on camp and that also defies the purpose of NYSC,” she said.
She said that the humiliation that was meted on the girls was regrettable adding that there were always consequences for disobeying a law.
“In as much as I am against the humiliation brought upon the girls, they invited it by going against the law in the first place.
“Coming to camp you should have known what to expect and adhere to it.
“Obedience they say, is better than sacrifice even the religious faith they are protecting does not give room for disobedience,” she said.
For Mr Monday Ijeh, since the scheme is para-military in nature, it would be an abuse to ask a lady to wear a skirt to participate as the skirt will not shield her body from the elements.
Mr Dominic Bassey expresses concerns that the judgment could lead to a lot of confusion with regards to the NYSC dress code in future.
“Allowing multiple uniform options could lead to a breakdown of cohesion in the scheme.
“If skirts are allowed today for religious reasons, what if another group decides that their tradition prohibits skirts but allows tying of wrappers instead?”I applaud the courage of the plaintiffs but I feel the uniform is not the problem with the NYSC, there should be a total overhaul of the entire scheme.
He said that the judgment represented a turning point in the Nigerian legal landscape adding that it underscored an evolving balance between institutional uniform policies and the protection of individual religious and human rights.
“Only time will tell how the NYSC will implement the judgment and whether similar challenges may arise in other public institutions,” he said.
NAN reports that the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a judgment delivered on June 13, declared as unconstitutional and a breach of fundamental rights to freedom of religion, the NYSC’s refusal to allow female corps members wear skirts in observance of their religious beliefs.
Justice Yilwa, in her judgment, held that the NYSC’s enforcement of trousers as the only acceptable uniform for female participants violated their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and human dignity.
The cases, filed separately by former corps members, Miss Blessing Ogunjobi and Miss Vivian Ayuba, were consolidated due to legal similarities.
In the suits marked FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020 respectively, the applicants argued that being compelled to wear trousers was contrary to their Christian faith, referencing Deuteronomy 22:5.
They interpreted the verse as forbidding women from wearing garments associated with men.
The court held that the NYSC’s insistence on trousers infringed on the applicants’ right to manifest their religion under Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The court held that it also subjected them to undue harassment and degrading treatment.
Justice Yilwa granted all reliefs sought by the applicants and issued identical orders in both cases:
“A declaration that the refusal to allow skirts for religious purposes is unconstitutional.
“An order mandating the NYSC to recognise and permit the use of skirts for female corps members with genuine religious objections.
“A directive compelling the NYSC to recall the affected former corps members and certificates issued to each of them accordingly.”
The court also made a declaration that the harassment, embarrassment, and humiliation which the applicants were subjected to in the hands of the agents of the respondents was a clear infringement on their fundamental right to religion and freedom to manifest the same in practice.
The judge awarded the sum of ₦500,000 in damages to each applicant for the violation of their fundamental rights.
Although both applicants had claimed ₦10 million in damages, the court described the ₦500,000 award as adequate in the circumstances.
The judgment further said that denying the applicants an avenue to complete their service due to their attire amounted to religious discrimination.
“The action of the respondents resulted in the applicants being embarrassed and humiliated.
“This is an outright infringement of their fundamental rights,” Justice Yilwa said.
The applicants had in their separate suits sought the enforcement of their fundamental rights to freedom of religion alleged to have been violated by the NYSC.
Listed as respondents in the suits FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020 are NYSC and the Director-General of NYSC.
Their application was brought pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Also, Articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17 & 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, which sought for the following reliefs:
“A declaration of the court that the refusal of the respondent to recognise 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.
“A declaration of the court that the use of skirts by the applicant in NYSC scheme forms part of her fundamental rights to freedom of religion and freedom to manifest same in practice and observance as contained in Section 38(1) of 1999 Constitution (as Amended).
“A declaration that the harassment, embarrassment and humiliation which the applicant was subjected to in the hands of the agents of the respondents is a clear infringement on the fundamental right of the said applicant’s right to religion and freedom to manifest same in practice as well as fundamental right to dignity of human person and degrading treatment.
“An order of the court mandating the respondents, their servants, agents, privies or whatsoever called to recognize, allow and provide skirt for the applicant or any female wishing to use same in line with Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the book of Deuteronomy 22:5.
“Damages in the sum of N10 million and such further order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”(NAN)
