The management of the Covenant
University, Ota, Ogun State has suspended about 200 undergraduates of the
faith-based institution for missing an Easter ‘Youth Alive’ program. The school
had earlier organized the four days Easter retreat for the students and had
also made attendance mandatory. However, while some of the students were fed up
– for various reasons – of going for church services in the morning and evening
for the four uninterrupted days, they couldn’t just but miss some days out of
the retreat. Surprisingly and unfortunately to them, they have been punished
through suspension by the school management for simply missing the compulsory
Easter program. Some were suspended for a year.
Suspension is a very serious
punishment. As serious as it is, however, there are instances where it will and
must necessarily be applicable on erring students. Yet, the means by which
students are suspended from school must be reasonable and must be carried out
within the confines of our laws.
This case of the Covenant
University suspending about 200 of its students for not attending an Easter
program is a prima facie case of unconstitutional suspension of university
students.
Before continuing with this
piece, there is need to state clearly that if there is any enacted law in the
university that have made attending religious functions compulsory, such law is
void and of no effect whatsoever. I am quite sure that the school would have
relied on a particular written law of the institution before the suspension
since “nulla poena sine lege” – there can be no punishment or penalty without
law. And if such law exists in the school, the law is clearly against the
provisions of the Constitution; the sacred book where all other laws derive
their validity. And if not, that will amount to the height of total
unconstitutionality because there ought to be no punishment without law. See
Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
Interestingly, the school
itself is a creation of law and the law is above the school authority or laws –
the Constitution is supreme and all other laws derive their validity from it.
The implication of this is that its (the school’s) actions must be within the
provisions of our laws, particularly the Constitution. By virtue of Section
1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme and its provisions
shall have binding force on all authorities (including Covenant University
authority) and persons throughout Nigeria. See MADU v. ONUAGULUCHI (1985) 6
NCLR 365.
Therefore, any law made by the
institution that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall
be declared void and unconstitutional. Section 1(3) of the Constitution goes
further to provides very clearly that “if any other law is inconsistent with
the provisions of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and that
other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” See ABACHA v.
FAWEHINMI (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228; F.R. N. v. IFEGWU (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.
842) 113; A.G ABIA STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264.
First, the students’ right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed under section 38(1) of
the 1999 Constitution has been breached. The section provides thus “every
person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
including freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom (either alone or
in community with others, in public or private) to manifest and propagate his
religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
The implication of this
section is that even though the school is established by a church, it will be
quite unapt to deny students the right to freedom of religion. Even when, for
example, all the students are Christians, the constitution has granted them the
right to change their religion or belief without notifying anyone. The
constitution has also granted the students the freedom to manifest their
beliefs either alone or in public and this can in fact justify their sitting in
their hostels instead of joining the congregation.
If based on personal
conviction – brought about by deep thought (a constitutional right) – the
suspended students have changed their religion, should that lead them out of
the school? Should exercising the constitutional right to change religion
amount to automatic carry overs and extra-years? Frankly, making attendance of
students compulsory and mandatory at a ‘Youth Alive’ Easter program is a breach
of this fundamental right.
Section 38(2) of the
Constitution goes further by providing thus: “No person attending any place of
education SHALL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR TO TAKE PART IN
OR ATTEND ANY RELIGIOUS CEREMONY OR OBSERVANCE, if such instruction, ceremony
or observance relates to a RELIGION OTHER THAN HIS OWN or religion not approved
by his parent or guardian.” (Emphasis supplied by me).
The above provision has
expressly precluded any institution from imposing religious instructions on
students for any reason whatsoever. However, there are two main clauses that
need to be clarified.
They are:
(1) Where the religious
instruction relate to a religion other than his own OR (not AND)
(2) Where the religion is not
approved by his parent or guardian.
Thus, if the school religion
is approved by the parent of the students, it will amount to a lawful
instruction. And where the instruction is in consonance with the plaintiff’s
religion, it is legally binding.
After all said however, in my
humble view, the former relates to where the person relying on the provision is
an aduItand is deemed fit under law to make decisions of his own without any
interference from anybody including the parent or guardian. And the latter will
be applicable where the person relying on the section is still an infant under
the law and is incapable of making some decisions without the parents’ or
guardians’ consent. And that’s why the drafters of the Constitution were
careful in making use of OR instead of AND. You either fall within a category.
I stand to be corrected!
There is need to categorically
state that an aduItdoes not necessarily need the approval of parents for the
religion he wishes to practice. More importantly, the students, presumed to be
adults, have been granted the right under section 38(1) of the constitution to
change their beliefs and religion without the approval of or from anyone. Thus,
where some of the students have exercised their constitutional right to change
their beliefs, it will be unconstitutional and very violating to force the
students of the institution to attend religious functions other than theirs.
For the constitution has provided in clear terms that no student shall be
compelled to attend religious function or ceremony where such instruction or ceremony
relates to a religion other than his own. And since most of them are adults,
the alternative (2) of “parents’ religion or consent” can be do away with and
inapplicable to this very serious matter.
Since it has been established
that the student has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religious,
it will also be very unlawful for an institution to compel students to be in
the midst of others for religious purpose. Apart from the fact that section
38(1) has vested on the students the right worship alone or in the midst of
others, making it an imperative for the student to be in attendance has also
violated the students’ right to peaceful assembly guaranteed under section 40
of the 1999 Constitution. It provides (in part) thus: “Every person shall be
entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular
he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other
association for the protection of his interest”. See the celebrated case of
AGBAI v. OKAGBUE (1991) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 204) 391 and the provision of Article
10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act.
Additionally, one of the
students was reported by Punch to have said this: “They stopped me from sitting
for a paper last week because I did not go for a service and I don’t know if I
will be allowed in today either.” This statement has the effect that the
student was not in fact aware of his suspension until he got to the exam hall.
Since the students appear not to have been summoned before suspended, it is
therefore safe to submit that the place of fair hearing is missing!
Fair hearing is a very
sacrosanct provision of the Constitution that relates to administration of
justice. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution provided for the right to fair
hearing or trial. Since the students are not summoned and interrogated formally
before suspension, it will be trite to submit that this fundamental right has
also been violated. It is a cardinal principle of Natural Justice that “nemo
judex in causa sua”; no one must be a judge in his own cause. But here, the
management of the Covenant University has assumed the role of the complainant
and the judge which is against the above principle. The school authority has
also failed to hear from the other side before meting out punishment since it
is the law that “audi alteram partem” – both sides must be heard in determining
cases.
Commenting on the sacrosanct
nature of fair hearing, in OMOKHODION V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND 6
OTHERS (2006) All FWLR 1, the court observed that a hearing can only be fair
when all of the parties involved are heard. And so, without fair hearing or
trial, the principles of Natural Justice, highlighted above, are out rightly
abandoned and violated. See GARBA V. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUDURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt
18) 550, OTAPO V. SUNMONU (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587, KOTOYE V. CENTRAL BANK OF
NIGERIA AND OTHERS (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419
Having established the grave
violations of the authority of the said school, it will be instructive to
assert that the school should as a matter of urgency withdraw the suspension in
order to promote rule of law in this country for the truth is that suspension
as punishment in this kind of situation is too harsh a decision. Saying it is
the height of cruelty and illegality is an understatement.
Relying on the above legal
authorities and provisions, the school is therefore enjoined to recall the
students and reinstate them and thereafter offer them public apology with immediate
effect. Unconstitutionality shouldn’t be celebrated and overlooked in this
country. We have laws in Nigeria which are above all of us and as such all
citizens and authorities must abide by it, whatever the state of our temper.
Remember, this piece is not
written to promote insubordination or indiscipline but to ensure justice is
done to the poor students.
God bless Nigeria.
Comments
Post a Comment