Much has been made about the peculiar case of Amasa Firdaws. Who was denied her call to bar certificate earlier this week, for refusing to follow tradition as per the bar associations requirements. I am of two minds about the issue because it seems to me to be indicative of an underlying problem we have, of the intersection between secular traditions, legal institutions and individual liberties.
While I find it rather unbecoming that the aspiring lawyer in question would chose to challenge a tradition she knew full well was incumbent upon her, as it has been upon all before her; I nonetheless find it quite ironic that the first institution to forgo ones constitutionally guaranteed right to religious expression, should be an institution of law.
Far from being a rare case of legal a legal dilemma, it is in fact a microcosm of a larger issue. In 2007, in a landmark ruling against the always entertaining, Asari Dokubo, the Supreme Court justice Muhammad JSc, had this to say:
‘’Where national security is threatened or there is a real likelihood of it being threatened, human rights, or individual rights of those responsible, take second place’’.
On the surface, of course this seems entirely reasonable. Yet on balance, what it did was set precedent for the suspension of one’s personal liberties, even on suspicion of wrongdoing. A ruling that was put to test in October of 2016, when seven judges, including two supreme court justices, were arrested in night time raids by the State Security Services, on suspicion of corruption.
All three cases are of course, largely dissimilar. Taken together however, they form a picture of a nation, government and legal tradition, at odds with each other. Where statutory, regulatory and even administrative laws, are many a times, in open conflict with one another.
Let us take a look at Secular tradition versus religious freedoms:
The secular argument, that it should free society from the influence of faith in the public sphere, promises a progressive society of peace and human advancement. In reality, throughout history, it has more commonly offered the opposite. The differences between the types of secularism in France and the United States are instructive. Their treatment of religion is significantly different due to their distinct views on human reason.
The first takes human reason to be intrinsically liberating. Its watchword is human freedom and autonomy, but it takes these as a given, just as it assumes a fundamental equality among all people. The second understands freedom, reason and equality within a religious context. Freedom is God given and therefore must be respected as such, so freedom of religion must be recognised. Beyond these viewpoints, aggressive secularism regards all religious claims as beyond reason or even irrational and potentially dangerous. That kind of secularist thought can never truly achieve the neutrality to which it aspires and always creates second class citizens out of those it would purport to protect the most.
Here in Nigeria, the aim of our secularist constitution is to balance citizens needs for freedom of religion with the states need to maintain order. When secularism achieves that balance, and many times it fails, it performs an invaluable public service. Unfortunately, this nation suffers from somewhat of a brain drain regarding both religious and secular intellectuals. And owing to the combative, and often times defensive nature, that has come to characterise our national discourse, there exists a chasm in our polity, where pragmatism would normally lie. Pragmatism, the theory that social and political problems should be met with practical solutions rather than mere aesthetic or emotional ones, is an indispensible ideal, necessary to the development of a nation as diverse as Nigeria.
In order for society to progress, we must come to define ‘’Nigerian Secularism’’. Does it entail total conformity to the state? Or an acknowledgment, and inclusion, of our diverse perspectives and beliefs under the states umbrella?
Various legal systems co-exist within the Nigerian state. It would be unwise to assume that no conflict arises from the juxtaposition of Marriage laws in Common law Vs Sharia Courts for example. This is a function of our yet maturing political landscape. Its complexity has left us unable to keep pace with a rapidly shifting and admittedly, convoluted legal climate. And in that way, it perfectly mirrors Nigeria’s unique condition. I would go so far as to argue that the framers of our constitution made the mistake of blending aspects of regulatory, constitutional and statutory laws in an effort to combine them all into a workable document. The end result, as it is, represents an amalgam of ideas that in practice are in fact opposed to one another.
Until we find, as a people, society and government, a lasting solution to this conundrum, secular values and religious/personal freedoms will inevitably continue to represent opposite ideals, when, ideally, for our society, they should complement one another.
