Blog

Editorial

The constitution is often referred to as the grundnom and the supreme law of the land. The first Nigerian constitution enacted in 1913 came into effect in 1914 after the amalgamation that gave the crown colony the Nigerian name. Between 1914 and 1999, there have been several constitutions.

As a constituent part of the whole, each ethnic bloc of the country is expected to operate within the dictates of the constitution and when there are conflicts with local laws, the courts are often approached for interpretation, and very often the Supreme Court plays the ultimate arbiter under such circumstances.

The apex court recently upheld the rights of Igbo female children to inherit property like their male counterparts. Even though most people are jubilant over the pronouncement, it is not entirely a new pronouncement as the court had earlier ruled on such matters. However, the recent ruling merely reiterates the position of the constitution as the guiding principle for equity and justice.

In the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the rights of female children to inherit their father’s property just like the males have over the years, based on the cultural tradition that is patriarchal, it reaffirms the fact that the country’s constitution overrides any other local laws.

The case in view was brought by Gladys Ada Ukeje against Mr. Lois Ukeje and her son, Enyinnaya Ukeje’s attempts to disinherit her from her father, late Lazarus Ogbonna Ukeje’s property, based on Igbo native law that cedes such rights of inheritance to the male children. The lower courts had earlier ruled in favour of Gladys and the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, upheld the judgments, citing the facts that the native law is discriminatory, and also a violation of Section 42 (1)(a) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.

Some crassly patriarchal apostles, especially traditional rulers, who, by the way, are supposed to be beacons of hope, justice and equity in Igboland have been protesting the Supreme Court ruling, with the puerile cynicism that tradition is eternal. It is a laughable attitude buttressing the fact that impunity often cascades from leadership at various levels in the country.

For such a tradition that negates all sense of justice and equity to be held onto tightly by  individuals whose authority to sit on the traditional stools is guaranteed by the same constitution through the handing over of the staff of office by the governors constitutionally empowered to do so on behalf of the people is the height of hypocrisy and shows a clear lack of a sense of equity and good conscience.

The critics of the Supreme Court ruling seem to forget too fast that this is the 21st century that the towers of patriarchy and several forms of injustice are being gradually lowered by humanity for a better and more equitable world. Such parochial mindset seems to have held humanity down for centuries.

It is laughable that human beings, like those who keep mouthing age-old traditions just for their selfish gains, are the major beneficiaries of modernity and its appurtenances. They forget that in the past, twins were killed and humans, especially males, were often sacrificed to deities and some often buried alive for some offences that mere arbitration and counselling could solve.

The contradictions and hypocrisy of the critics of the ruling even become more evident when put side- by-side the new wave of loquaciousness about their Christianity.

However, while we recognise the rights of such individuals to their freedom of expression, we agree with the Supreme Court that the constitution overrides all other local laws for law and order to be guaranteed in an environment that promotes justice and equity. The rights of women are human rights and must be seen as such.