IBNET

    The Nigerian embassy in Washington DC on October 28, 2013 denied a Muslim sister in hijab who had gone for a biometrics appointment necessary to replace passport any service on the basis that she had to expose her ears. Even when the victim informed the attendant that she was wearing the hijab for religious purpose and as such could not expose her ears, an immigration attaché at the embassy intervened and insisted that the victim had to “because it is the law of Nigeria that ears must show”. Also on March 4th, a Muslim brother went to the passport office in Ikoyi, Lagos to process his application for international passport. The brother was denied access to any service and was told that there was “a new directive that they should not snap people with beards due to the current security challenges in the country”. The brother was firmly told that unless he trimmed his beard he would not get his passport photograph taken.  These are not isolated cases, rather thousands of Muslim sister

    The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) yesterday moved against the hijab bill which has scaled through the second reading in the House of Representatives. The bill is titled ‘Religious Discrimination (Prohibition, Prevention) Bill 2021’. CAN’s opposition to the bill came through a statement issued yesterday by its secretary, Joseph Daramola, who argued that legislating the wearing of hijab in schools would lead to the trouble that the sponsors of the bill may not be able to handle. Daramola claimed that the bill is ill-timed and uncalled for.  But the Nigerian Islamic human rights group, the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has described CAN’s opposition to the freedom bill as conservative and reactionary. MURIC urged lawmakers to go ahead with the bill as it is not designed for hijab rights alone. The Muslim rights advocacy argued that the bill also aims at liberating Nigerian workers and women from discrimination.  MURIC reacted to CAN’s statement through its director, Professor