New Police Dress Code: The Learned Silk Got It Wrong: A Rejoinder To Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

By Kazeem A. Oyinwola

I read with astonishment the opinion of Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN on the new dress code approved by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) for women of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF). Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN, in his write-up, based his position on sections 10 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN 1999) and concluded that the dress code is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional. First, what is the new dress code and why is it illegal and unconstitutional according to Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN?.

To quote CSP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, the Ag. Force Public Relations Officer, in NPF Press Release dated 4^th March, 2022, (Press Release) the IGP approved ‘…a new and improved dress code for’ willing policewomen which permits them ‘to wear stud earrings, and headscarf under their berets or peak caps’ (as the case may be) ‘while in uniform.’ The Press Release expressly mentioned that ‘…the dress code is optional’. So suffices to say that what was approved by the IGP were ‘stud earrings, and headscarf’ for willing policewomen and this can be worn under berets or peak caps. So, exactly where does Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN see his own ‘hijab’ in the Press Release? Does the learned Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN have another version of the Press Release?

Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN cited sections 10 and 42 of the CFRN 1999 in aid of his submission that the dress code is illegal. Let me, for ease of reference, reproduce section 10 here. Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution provides thus:

“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”

Without the need to define the word ‘religion’ the operative phrase in section 10 is, ‘shall not adopt any religion as State Religion’. By allowing willing policewomen to wear ‘stud earrings and ‘headscarf’ under berets or peak cap, can it be said that the Government of the Federation has, through the IGP’s approval of the dress code, adopted any particular religion as State religion? I think not!

The learned Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN also relied on section 42 of the CFRN 1999 Constitution. For ease of reference, section 42(1) of the CFRN 1999 provides thus;

‘A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:-

(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or

(b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.

Again, can it be said that the government of the Federation has, through the IGP’s approved dress code, discriminated against any particular citizen(s) of a particular community, ethnic group or place of origin on the basis of sex, religion or political opinion? I also think not!

There is no doubt that Mr. Adegboruwa’s reliance on sections 10 and 42 of the CFRN 1999 to conclude that the dress code is illegal is itself erroneous! Exactly how did Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN come to the conclusion that the mere approval of ‘stud earrings and headscarf’ for willing policewomen translate to adoption of a particular religion as State Religion? ‘Stud earrings’ is a religion of which particular people in Nigeria? If ‘headscarf’ is what informs Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN’s conclusion that the dress code is all about ‘hijab’ and thus tantamount to enforcing a religion, then the learned Mr. Adegboruwa, SAN needs to understand and appreciate the difference between ‘headscarf’ and ‘hijab’! Hijab is a veil worn by Muslim women outside their homes or in the presence of any male outside their immediate family (non mahram) which covers the head and chest (bosom). Thus, the ‘hijab’ and the ‘headscarf’ are clearly not the same.

The learned Mr. Adegboruwa SAN’s red herring about what would be the possible official uniform for policewomen who are in the Catholic Church or how the policewomen in celestial church including the traditionalists who wear charm and amulets would dress is faulty to the extent that it relies on the wrong assumptions that ‘stud earrings’ and ‘headscarf’ approved in the new dress code cannot be worn by the people mentioned and the approval only favours the Muslim because it mentions ‘headscarf’. Is the learned Mr. Adegboruwa SAN implying that ‘stud earrings’ and ‘headscarf’ are only worn by Muslims and not also worn by the people he mentioned? One can see how the very learned Mr. Adegboruwa SAN made heavy weather of the ‘hijab’ despite that there was no mention of ‘hijab’ in the Press Release?

What is particularly interesting was the part of the write-up where the learned silk told the IGP to focus on confronting the myriads of issues like low morale, poor welfare, poor infrastructure, poor training and poor welfare affecting his men instead of using his office to perpetuate religion. One is then prompted to ask, how does IGP’s approval for ‘stud earrings’ and ‘headscarf’ for willing policewomen deprive the IGP the opportunity to focus on confronting these identified issues? Adopting this line of reasoning, one may then ask the very learned Mr. Adegboruwa SAN why, out of all the myriad of issues confronting the bar, the bench and the justice sector, it is the issues of ‘stud earrings’ and ‘headscarf’ for willing policewomen that bother him?

The new dress code is in line with global best practice of accommodating diversity and ensuring inclusiveness. Members of the NPF came from diverse backgrounds and an objective mind would see nothing wrong in accommodating their diversity. Diversity and inclusion are necessary for our growth, and these two key concepts must remain at the center of what we do as a people. Thus, for an objective observer, there is clearly no illegality or unconstitutionality in the new approved dress code as the optionality of it cannot equate or be equated to ‘enforcing religion’.

Kazeem A. Oyinwola writes from Abuja. He can be reached via [email protected]