“Diversity on the bench is critical. As practitioners,
you need judges who ‘get it’! We need judges who understand what discrimination
feels like. We need judges who understand what inequality feels like. We need
judges who understand the subtleties of unfair treatment and who are willing to
call it out when they see it!” [1]
“When women thrive, all of society benefits, and
succeeding generations are given a better start in life.”[2]
It
is no more news that the Chief justice of Nigeria, Justice Maryam Alooma
Mukthar stepped down the swearing in of one of the recently appointed justices
of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo on the basis of her state of
origin. The strange thing however, is the existence of such a policy within the
judiciary; a policy which denies a married woman a position whether appointed
or elected, in her husband’s state.
We
do not have much to say about the decision of the CJN[3] to
step down the swearing in of Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo based on the petition
before her, as the constitution says it all in Section 238(2) which provides
that a justice of the court of appeal shall be appointed by the president on
the recommendation of the NJC[4],
it means that constitutionally, she automatically became a justice of the Court
of Appeal, the very day, the president appointed her.
Our
major concern is the policy that estopps women from taking up positions in
their matrimonial state. If such a policy or law is real or actually exists, it
means that when a woman gets married she is not entitled to any benefits from
the husband’s state, in fact she is not even a citizen of that state yet she
bears the man’s name but she is a stranger in her own home, that is wrong on
all levels. It is discrimination which is against Section 42 of the Nigerian
constitution. The constitution is supreme and any law or policy that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is null and void to the
extent of its inconsistency.
Furthermore,
it is trite that once a woman gets married, as much as she still retains the
right of indigeneship of that state, it is really difficult to get appointment
or be elected in her state of origin because she is already “sold out” to the
other state, in fact her chances are higher in her husband’s state. This policy
or whatever it is, threatens the sanctity of marriage. It means when a woman
gets married and still wants to build her career especially in the judiciary,
she should be limited to her state of origin, in which case she may not have to
remain in her state to pursue her career while the husband stays in his own
state.
Moreover,
it threatens our unity as a nation, because it discourages inter- state
marriage as only women who do not care about their career that will get married
outside their state. There is unity in diversity, it is what makes us a great
nation, Inter- state and inter- tribal marriage fosters unity and peaceful
co-existence.
Before
we conclude may we ask, what is the fate of other married women who have built
their career for years in their husband’s state? What happens to the women who
are already occupying positions in states other than their state of birth,
should they resign and go back to their state of origin? Is it okay for a woman
to bear her husband’s name but not enjoy other benefits accrued to the marriage
like career advancement? What is the hope of her children, how are we sure that
tomorrow they won’t be denied their right because of their mother’s state of
origin?
The
stepping down of Justice Ifeoma’s swearing in on the basis of her state of
origin is sad, even more pathetic as it is coming from the judiciary we submit
that that law needs to be reviewed as soon as possible no matter the reason it
was made in the first place because it is discriminatory, unconstitutional,
unfair, offensive, manifest injustice and contrary to natural justice, equity and
good conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment