Until early 2024, precisely February 4 2024,when Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu elaborately presented Hyeladzira Ngajiwa to the public, in a most indignant of introductions, not many outside the loop of the legal system in the country knew who the man was.
Hyeladzira Nganjiwa has been on the bench of the Federal High Court since May 2012 though, and has been practicing law for almost 40 years. In the course of his career on the bench, as his introduction revealed, Nganjiwa has got ensnared in a few unpleasant professional issues, which called his integrity to question. But he is as resilient as they come in Nigerian public stations, so the judge is still standing. He presently sits on the bench at the Federal High Court in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State.
In truth, Nganjiwa does not live and function outside the predominant character of the judicial system, which he is part and parcel of. Prof. Odinkalu acknowledged that much. The prevailing environment in which not only the judiciary, but also the executive, the legislature, and virtually all segments of the administrative system in Nigeria operate, is evocative of that era in ancient Israel, when “there was no king in Israel [ judges governed], and everyone did what was good in his own eyes”. [Judges 21:25]
The judgment that Justice Nganjiwa delivered on February 1 2024, which elicited the introduction to his person by Odinkalu, was one of those instances in the delivery of justice in the present era, where a judge did what was good in his own eyes. And possibly in few other eyes. It was one of those political cases, which define the crisis of standard in justice delivery in the country.
At about the time in early February 2024, that Justice Nganjiwa was delivering the contentious judgment, which barred a political party and its candidate, from participating in an election billed to hold in a matter of days, the judge also had another judgment rolling out of his loaded pouch. This time, it was an interesting matter, brought by a female corps member, named Ufuamaka Glory Ukpanken, against the National Youth Service Corps [NYSC], its Director General and the State coordinator of NYSC in Ebonyi State. What was the issue? Miss Ukpanken sought the enforcement of her fundamental human rights, insisting that by forcing her to wear trousers, which is a basic wear in the National Youth Service, NYSC was forcing her to act against her religious belief. Miss Ukpanken contended, through her lawyer, that wearing trousers is an infringement of her fundamental human rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The case had been on since January 13 2023, when it was filed.
Early this year, one year after the case commenced. Justice Nganjiwa ruled on the matter. The judge held that it is indeed, a human rights violation for the NYSC to compel female corps members to wear trousers.
In his judgment, the judge made a declaration, that the insistence of NYSC on females wearing trouser and their refusal to accord prime recognition to skirts as basic wear for female corps members, constitute a breach of the fundamental rights of the Applicant, Miss Ukpanken, guaranteed in Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended).
Justice Nganjiwa hinged his judgment on the fact that the Applicant is a Christian and according to him, wearing trousers counters the injunctions contained in the Book of Deuteronomy [Chapter 22, verse 5 in the Holy Bible (KJV). Wonderful!
So, what is the injunction in Deuteronomy 22: 5 on which Justice Nganjiwa anchored his judgment? Deuteronomy 22: 5 says; “A woman must not wear a man’s clothing, nor a man the clothing of a woman”.
It may not be very clear at this point, which side of the old Jewish doctrinal divide, Hyeladzira Nganjiwa subscribes to. It does appear that he belongs to the Pharisees, as opposed to the Sadducees. Whichever, his introduction into a judicial ruling in 21st century Nigeria, of the old disputation between two ancient Jewish doctrinal divides, makes him a man to pay more attention to.
The Igbo have a descriptive cognomen for the likes of Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa. His type is referred to as “Ome ihe uzu”. Simply, that is someone whose action easily elicits uproar.
Now, the question becomes, what type of dress is trousers? Where did Nganjiwa learn that trousers as a wear is a man’s dress? Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus says trousers is “a garment shaped to cover the body from the waist to the ankle or knees with separate tube- shaped sections for each leg”.
Merriam Webster Dictionary on its side, says trousers is “pants -usually used in plural”
Cambridge Dictionary says trousers is “a piece of clothing covering the lower part of the body from the waist to the foot and including separate sections for each leg; pants”
Wikipedia gives some insight into the history of trousers. It says “The first appearance of trousers in recorded history is among nomadic Steppe-people living in Western Europe. These were group of nomads of various different ethnic groups that lived in the Eurasian grasslands. Further elucidation by Wikipedia offers that “archaeological evidence suggests that men and women alike wore trousers in that cultural context. However, for much of modern history, the use of trousers has been restricted to men. This norm was enforced in many regions due to social customs and laws. There are however many historical cases of women wearing trousers in defiance of these norms…”
There is every reason to doubt that trousers as a form of dress existed at the period the events in Deuteronomy were set, when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, trying to effectively leave Egypt. Even up the 7th century, about which time Deuteronomy, as part of the Hebrew body of laws known as the Pentateuch was ascribed to have been written, trousers, in any form, did not exist. The interpretation by Justice Nganjiwa that the injunction in Deuteronomy that women should not wear men’s cloth translates to a female corps member should not wear trousers, is at best, a strange reading.
Justice Nganjiwa’s Pharisiac ruling was not standing on nothing. It followed on the heels of recent unfortunate judicial judgments, that pandered to religious zealousness, while corroding common grounds in Nigeria. Once the court was used not too long ago, to introduce wearing Hijab during the thick of activities in NYSC camps, it was only a matter of time before wearing trousers came under jeopardy. More orthodox dress codes will be toppled in due course in such other fields as the regimented services, including military service, all because Nigeria has become a very religious society. Sham!
As at the time the National Youth Service Corps was established in 1973 [Decree No.24 of May 22 1973], Nigeria had genuinely committed Christian and Muslim citizenry. At all segments of the government, even under the Military, there was a fair representation of people of all faith, genuinely loyal to country as they were dedicated to their God. Nobody saw anything anti-religion in the dress code of the national service corps, which was patterned as a para-military service.
That remained the situation until recent years, when dangerous religious extremism started to gain ground and men with glaring emptiness, masked in dubious holiness began to gain ground. Nigeria has been losing most what held it together and made it thick since then, thanks to questionable holiness.
Poor NYSC. Poor country. Clearly, the values, standard and discipline that held up the scheme and the country over many years, will continue to give way to destructive religious sensitivity. The displacement of the original dress code of the NYSC by religious-sensitive attire may appear a non-issue to many for now, but with that goes the strict regimens, principles and unity of the national service. In their place will, of course, come more prayer. And more rot all over.