Hijab Controversy: The Legal Status on Missionary Schools in Ilorin
By Sambo Muritala
POLITICS DIGEST – Many a time I laughed when people ask for what lawyer will eat when litigation are not forthcoming. Lawyer eats more in every spheres of human life more better than in litigation.
When you take money for the brief you can not ascertain how long it will take, how do you justify the money you earned?
It is the tradition of our courts to encourage parties in litigation to explore alternative dispute resolution which is another beautiful area that lawyers will work little for big pay if properly and professionally managed.
Many a time courts inquired from litigants the reason why they are not exploring the alternative dispute resolution. We have been repeatedly directed as legal practitioners to avoid encouraging litigation among litigants. Courts do this to avoid a situation where winner takes all and looser gain none which is the only style known in litigation and is mostly not good for harmonious coexistence.
When the issue of hijab were brought to court, the justices of court of Appeal deliberately delayed the appeal and encouraged the parties to settle the matter by exploring alternative dispute resolution. It will be recalled that each time the parties met for settlement, it was the issue of marginalization of a religion denomination by the government in political appointments that were brought on table for negotiations.
The judgement of court of Appeal finally comes as parties wish. Calling for further settlement arrangements is like setting a cart before the horse. It is only in alternative dispute resolution that the court had earlier encouraged that such arrangement may survive. Parties negotiate, sacrifice and shift positions of their comforts without hindering their harmonious relationship only exists in alternative dispute resolution not in litigation.
I hardly see any winner of litigation who were magnanimous in his victory.
Read Also:
Some people say the Appellants are in Supreme Court and the successful party should maintain the statutes quo. Firstly, no notice of Appeal has been served on the winner of court of Appeal judgement as at the moment I am writing this.
Assuming without conceding the matter has been appealed to Supreme Court and the other parties have been properly served, I have asked once and I am asking again: what is the statutes quo before the matter was brought to the high court? The statutes quo was that government was allowing the Muslims to use hijab in schools which they claimed was antithetical to the religious belief of the purported proprietors of the schools.
What we have in missionaries schools in Ilorin at the moment is the best definition of the word statutes quo antebellum.
The government has no discretion as to the matter which has been decided by court. Some privileges the missionaries schools were enjoying before the judgement will no longer be applicable and the government has no power to continue as those questions regarding to that have been asked in court and the court has comprehensively answered those questions.
Since government aided schools are owned by government, nobody will be allowed to dictate the uniforms and teachers that head the schools since the privileges earlier indulged are not known to law.
The idea of people castigating the position of government is funny as the government lacks power to add or subtract from the prevailing judgement of court of Appeal even if it removes the governor from the office he is holding. It will be contemptuous and treasonable offense for anyone to make attempt, attempted attempt, calculated attempt to foist the well-being of the people of this state or issue a directive or statement contrary to the prevailing judgement of court of Appeal and directive of government which is in line with the prevailing judgement.
I know as a matter of fact that people are fueling the polity of the harmonious state of this state but it will surely not work and in no time those who think we do not deserve peaceful coexistence in the name of religions will surely pay dearly for the quantum of their involvement.
Sambo Muritala, a lawyer writes from Ilorin
