curfew, whereby members of a particular community are restricted from movement, either from certain period of the day or through out some or a particular day specified by the issuing traditional authority. This act continues till date, especially in local communities or villages. This paper considers whether such traditional practices which restrict the freedom of movement of individual members of the Nigerian community do not amount to violation of human rights of those restricted persons? It will be understood and observed that the issue of traditional practices as a right, relates to ‘religion’ of the propagators and or adherents of that tradition who are thereby ‘traditionalists’. It is observed that among those traditions, there are those which require people not to move at a particular period or periods of the day, some of whom definitely, might be adherents of other religion(s). It is trite law that right to practice a particular religion has been conferred on Nigerian citizens by virtue of section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution. Therefore, individual citizens of Nigeria have the right to practise either alone or in community with others, (and in public or private) and to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance without being compelled to practise any religion that is against the religion of his parent or guardian or himself. From the provisions of section 38 of the Constitution, it is submitted that traditional practices that are contrary to the religion of another citizen of Nigeria cannot be enforced on that non-traditionalist person as doing so would be unconstitutional, invalid, null and void and will amount to a sheer violation of the fundamental rights of other citizens who practice other religion(s) other than the traditional practices. Nigerian citizens must understand their human rights and the limitations therein. The practice of one religion must not hinder the religion of another person’s right to his religion conferred by the Constitution. Therefore, anyone who alleges a violation of his fundamental rights or its being violated or its likelihood of being violated by any person or community of traditionalists, has the right to apply to a High Court in that State where such contravention occurs to seek redress, as provided by section 46(1) of the Constitution. More so, there are even some of the thoughts that anyone who contravenes the traditional instructions given compelling a curfew on the members of the community will have penalty made against him. This is really ridiculous! All these practices ought to be disallowed by Nigerian government as such practices contravene the provisions of the Constitution. More so, government has been conferred the power to legislate on laws that prevent abuse of human rights of other Nigerian citizens as provided by section 45(1) of the Constitution. So, government is hereby called upon to disallow all those traditions that compel ‘curfew’ unlawfully and unconstitutionally on other religions or members of other religious practices without any justifiable reason. More so, it is submitted that those traditional practices also contravene sections: 33, 34, 35, 36 and 41 of the Constitution depending on the circumstances of those traditional practices. One other legal issue to determine is ‘who has the power to declare curfew in a state? And what can be justifications for such declaration constitutionally? Furthermore, it is the submission of the writer of this paper that, actions and or suits bothering on the enforcement of fundamental rights have the force of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution. See the case of Abia State University, Uturu v Anyaibe (1996) 3 NWLR (pt. 439) 646 at 661, per Katsina-Alu, JCA (as he then was) . In essence, actions bothering on enforcement of fundamental rights have the force of the Constitution. Therefore, where there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Constitution and the traditional practices, the provisions of the Constitution shall prevail and those traditional provisions of the traditional practices shall be null and void and of no effect to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution is in support of this position that ‘1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (3) 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’. Furthermore, it is the humble submission of the writer of this paper that the provisions of the Constitution are the grund norm and the supreme law of the land. In the case of PDP V CPC (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1277) 485 at 511 it was held that: ‘The Constitution of Nigeria is the grundnorm, otherwise known as the basic norm from which all the other laws of the society derive their validity. Each legal norm of the Society derives its validity from basic norm. Any other law that is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution must give way or abate’. Also, Ngwuta JSC held in the case of Oni v Fayemi (2013) 12 NWLR (part 1369) 431 SC. thus: ‘I wish to emphasise that the Constitution of the Federation, 1999 as variously amended, is the yardstick for determining the validity velnon of any act or decision in relation to any law in the country. Any derogation from one section is not only extraneous to the Constitution but a violation of the solemn oath undertaken by all Judges to defend and protect it’. It is further submitted that any provision of any enactment and or traditional practice or custom that is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution shall be declared null and void and of no effect to the extent of such inconsistency. More clearly on the submission above, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has held in A.C.B. V Losada (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 7 NWLR (pt. 405) 26 at page 53 (paragraphs A-B) where Adio J.S.C. held thus: ‘It has never been the case in our law that the provisions of any ordinary statute would render nugatory the relevant provisions of the Constitution. See: Ishola v Ajiboye (1994) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt. 352) 506 at p. 621; (1994) 19 L.R.C.N. 35. Therefore, if any law of the State including a subsidiary legislation like the aforesaid High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Lagos State, is inconsistent with the provision of the constitution, the provisions of the constitution prevail and that State law is to the extent of inconsistency void’. It was also held in Achu v C.S.C. Cross Rivers State (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1129) 475 at page 506 (paragraphs A-B), where the court held thus: ‘The provisions of an ordinary statute would not render nugatory the relevant provisions of the constitution’. Also, the provisions of the Constitution in section 46(1) and (2) and the provisions of Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009-herein after referred to as FREPR- have conferred the right of action on any person thus ‘Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him, may apply to a High Court in that State for redress. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter’.  Furthermore, the provisions of Order III of the FREPR has prohibited any limitation of action law thus ‘An Application for the enforcement of Fundamental Right shall not be affected by any limitation Statute whatsoever’. Therefore and finally, individual members of the community are to understand that they have their rights to religion and no one can compel them to practice the religion that is against the religion of his parent or guardian or that of himself and such right cannot be denied except by complying with section 45(1) of the Constitution and section 305 of the Constitution. He can also apply to a High Court in the State where the infringement on his rights in Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened. e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com]]>

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)

Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.