A court ruling allowing female National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members to wear skirts for religious reasons has sparked conflicting responses; proponents have hailed it as a victory for women’s rights, while detractors have warned of policy erosion.
In a June 13 ruling, Justice Hauwa Yilwa ruled 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.
She notably defended the right of female corps members to wear skirts if they do so for really religious reasons.
Speaking to NAN, Mrs. Juliet Ogunsaya, who served in Enugu state, said she thought the ruling was fascinating and praised the plaintiffs’ bravery.
I’m happy the plaintiffs prevailed because I think the case and ruling are fascinating and I respect their bravery in taking on the NYSC.
“Especially since it is alleged that they have been humiliated, embarrassed, and harassed.” The NYSC should no longer be required; instead, it should be optional for individuals who choose to participate, in my opinion, as it has outlived its initial purpose.
However, I believe that since it is a paramilitary plan, it is crucial to wear the proper uniform to prevent it from turning into a free-for-all.
On a more humorous note, she remarked, “I wonder how the ladies of my time would have handled the physical exercises, such as climbing a rope-line while wearing skirts.”
Additionally, given that the NYSC was founded by a legislation, StellaMaris Akubuike had concerns about the ruling.
“I am not happy with the ruling because the NYSC’s establishment and dress code are supported by legitimate laws.
As a paramilitary organization, the NYSC’s dress code is holy and should be followed rather than breaking the law.
“How can one expect to go mountaineering in the same way that we did during our time at Agwu camp, with the early morning workouts, rope climbing activities during Man ‘O’ War, or even the match pass-on skirt?
She stated, “It is practically impossible unless one has chosen not to participate in any of the activities on camp, which also goes against the goal of NYSC.”
There were always repercussions for breaking the law, she added, adding that the girls’ humiliation was unfortunate.
As much as I dislike the girls’ humiliation, they invited it by breaking the law in the first place.
“You should have been aware of what to expect and followed it when you arrived at camp.
“They say obedience is preferable to sacrifice, and even the religious faith they are defending does not tolerate disobedience,” she stated.
Mr. Monday Ijeh believes that asking a woman to wear a skirt in order to participate would be abusive because the skirt will not protect her body from the weather and the scheme is paramilitary in character.
Regarding the NYSC clothing code going forward, Mr. Dominic Bassey is worried that the ruling may cause a great deal of misunderstanding.
“The scheme’s cohesiveness could break down if several uniform variations are allowed.
“If religious beliefs permit skirts today, what if another group decides that their tradition forbids skirts but permits the tying of wrappers instead?” While I commend the plaintiffs for their bravery, I believe that the NYSC needs a complete revision of the entire plan, not just the uniform.
In addition to highlighting a developing balance between institutional uniform policy and the defense of individual religious and human rights, he said the ruling marked a turning moment in Nigerian law.
“It remains to be seen how the NYSC will carry out the ruling and whether comparable issues might emerge in other public institutions,” he stated.
Read Also: How Gombe State JAMB Enhances Workforce Effectiveness with Capacity Building Initiatives
According to our correspondent, the NYSC’s decision to forbid female corps members from wearing skirts in respect for their religious convictions was ruled unlawful and a violation of their fundamental right to freedom of religion by the Federal High Court in Abuja in a ruling rendered on June 13.
In her ruling, Justice Yilwa ruled that the NYSC had infringed upon the constitutionally protected rights of women to human dignity and freedom of religion by requiring trousers as the only permissible uniform for female participants.
Legal similarities led to the consolidation of the lawsuits, which were filed independently by Miss Blessing Ogunjobi and Miss Vivian Ayuba, both former corps members.
The applicants in the cases with the filing numbers FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020, respectively, claimed that wearing pants was against their Christian beliefs, citing Deuteronomy 22:5.
They read the text as prohibiting women from dressing in men’s clothing.
According to the court, the petitioners’ right to express their faith was violated by the NYSC’s insistence on wearing trousers, as stated in Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Additionally, it exposed them to excessive harassment and degrading treatment, the court ruled.
Justice Yilwa issued identical rulings in both cases and granted all of the applicants’ requests for relief, declaring that the ban on skirts worn for religious reasons is unconstitutional.
For female corps members who have legitimate religious concerns, the NYSC must acknowledge and allow the usage of skirts.
“A directive requiring the NYSC to recall the impacted former corps members and appropriate certificates to be issued to each of them.”
The applicants’ fundamental right to freedom of religion and freedom to express it in practice was clearly violated by the harassment, humiliation, and embarrassment they endured at the hands of the defendants’ agents, the court further declared.
The judge granted each applicant ₦500,000 in damages for the infringement of their fundamental rights.
The ₦500,000 award was deemed sufficient in the circumstances by the court, despite the fact that both applicants had sought ₦10 million in damages.
The ruling also stated that it was discriminatory against the applicants’ religion to deny them a chance to finish their duty because of their clothing.
The respondents’ actions caused the applicants to feel ashamed and degraded.
According to Justice Yilwa, “this is a flagrant violation of their fundamental rights.”
In their individual lawsuits, the petitioners sought redress for claimed violations of their fundamental rights to freedom of religion by the NYSC.
In the lawsuits FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020, NYSC and its Director-General are named as respondents.
Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as modified) and Order 11 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 were the grounds for their application.
According to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, and 19, as well as the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the following reliefs were sought: “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.”
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, as stated in Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
A statement that the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of religion and freedom to practice it, as well as the right to human dignity and degrading treatment, were all flagrantly violated by the harassment, humiliation, and embarrassment that the applicant endured at the hands of the respondents’ agents.
According to Deuteronomy 22:5 and Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the court must order the respondents, their servants, agents, privies, or anybody else called to recognize, permit, and provide skirt for the applicant or any female wishing to use it. The damages must total N10 million, and the court may issue any additional orders it sees fit given the circumstances.
