Trending 
The High Court in Abuja has ruled that the National Youth Service Corps’ (NYSC) denial of female corps members the right to wear skirts in line with their religious beliefs is unconstitutional.
In a ruling delivered by Judge Hauwa Yilwa, she concluded that requiring female participants in the scheme to wear trousers, against their held religious beliefs, constituted a violation of their rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution and various human rights accords.
“A declaration that the refusal to allow skirts for religious purposes is unconstitutional,” she ruled.
The case was brought by two former corps members, Ogunjobi Blessing and Ayuba Vivian, who contended that the NYSC’s uniform policy conflicted with their Christian faith, as stated in Deuteronomy 22:5, which forbids women from wearing clothing traditionally associated with men.
The lawsuits, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/989/2020 and FHC/ABJ/CS/988/2020, were filed initially separately against the NYSC and its Director-General but were later combined due to their common issues.
Citing sections 38 and 42 of the constitution as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the plaintiffs urged the court to declare the NYSC’s policy unconstitutional and discriminatory. They also sought damages and requested certificates of national service, having been barred from completing the program due to their unwillingness to wear trousers.
In her detailed ruling, Yilwa ruled in their favour, saying that the NYSC’s uniform policy, when enforced so rigidly, not only compromised religious freedom but also subjected the plaintiffs to degrading treatment.
She mandated the NYSC to acknowledge and permit skirts for female corps members who present valid religious objections, instructing the agency to reinstate the two affected women and issue them their NYSC certificates appropriately.
While the applicants had each requested N10 million in damages, the court awarded them N500,000 each, emphasising the need to recognise the harm endured without overextending in financial compensation.
The court’s ruling establishes a new standard for addressing faith-based objections within government-run programs.
