By Barrister Taofeeq Jaji

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has received and reviewed a formal petition from Mrs Hajiah Madinah Adigun-Oladotun, a Nigerian entrepreneur and media practitioner, detailing a troubling experience during her passport renewal biometric capturing at the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) office in Abuja.

According to the petition, officials of the NIS insisted that she must expose her ears before biometric capture could proceed.

Despite her clear explanation that her hijab is a religious obligation and not a fashion choice. She was reportedly informed that this requirement was a “new policy” allegedly issued under the authority of the current Honourable Minister of Interior.

The Muslim woman’s story is already in the news. MURIC finds this development deeply disturbing, discriminatory, and constitutionally questionable.

This policy infringes on Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The section guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to manifest such religion in practice and observance. Section 42 further prohibits discrimination based on religion in access to public services.

A policy that compels Muslim women to alter their religious appearance as a precondition for accessing passport services amounts to institutional discrimination and religious intolerance, particularly where no compelling security justification has been publicly demonstrated.

MURIC notes with serious concern that, Nigerian passport data capturing historically accommodated Muslim women wearing hijab.

The petitioner herself had previously completed biometric capturing without such a demand, including in the United States, permitting passport photographs with religious head coverings without showing the ears.

This sudden and unexplained shift demanding the pull back of hijab to expose the ears of Muslim women represents a dangerous regression in Nigeria’s pluralistic and multi-faith administrative tradition.

Aside from the constitutional breach, forcing Muslim women to expose their ears creates identity distortion. The petitioner reports possible harassment and questioning wherever she presents such a, distorted document, banks, agencies, international borders, etc because her passport photograph does not reflect her normal religious appearance. This exposes Nigerian citizens to embarrassment and profiling at home and abroad, entirely avoidable with inclusive policies.

MURIC is constrained to observe that the policy was attributed to the office of the current Minister of the Interior. While MURIC does not assert motive, it is legitimate and unavoidable for concerned Muslim citizens to question whether a policy that disproportionately burdens Muslim women would have emerged under previous administrations.

Is this policy the product of insufficient religious sensitivity, or a failure to appreciate Nigeria’s constitutional diversity?

If the policy truly emanates from the Minister’s office, then the Honourable Minister owes Nigerians, especially Muslim women, a clear legal explanation. Policies affecting fundamental rights cannot be imposed by administrative fiat, nor can they be insulated from constitutional scrutiny.

MURIC hereby calls for the following immediate actions:

Public clarification from the Ministry of Interior and the NIS on the legal basis of this so-called “new policy”;

immediate suspension of any biometric requirement compelling Muslim women to expose parts of their bodies contrary to their religious obligations;

Adoption of a faith-sensitive biometric framework consistent with constitutional guarantees and international best practices and

Training and re-orientation of NIS officers on religious rights, professionalism, and respectful engagement with citizens.

Nigeria is a multi religious state. It is neither secular nor anti-religious. Any policy, therefore, that forces citizens to choose between their faith and access to public services has no place in a constitutional democracy.

MURIC will not hesitate to pursue all lawful avenues, including engagement with oversight bodies and strategic litigation, should this discriminatory practice persist.

Source: MURIC