By Emperor Nnabuihe Iwuala Ph.D
The sanctity of testamentary freedom, though recognised in law, is not absolute. While the law grants a testator the right to dispose of his estate in the manner he deems fit, such disposition must remain within the permissible limits of law, public policy, and good conscience. A will cannot be used as a legal instrument to fetter the natural rights of another, particularly in matters of personal liberty and dignity.
Recent discussions surrounding the will of the late Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, a prominent businessman and statesman, have drawn considerable legal attention. It is alleged that he included in his will a clause barring his wife, Frances Chinonyerem Enwerem, from remarrying after his death, with the penalty of forfeiting all inheritance due to her. Such a clause, though perhaps reflective of personal sentiment, is legally indefensible.
It is imperative to underscore that the right to marry or remarry is an essential component of personal liberty, as protected under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees the right to private and family life. No instrument, not even a will, may override that constitutional safeguard.
The nature of the clause in question is characteristic of what the law refers to as a condition subsequent, a clause which purports to divest a beneficiary of a testamentary gift upon the occurrence of a future event, in this case, remarriage. Nigerian jurisprudence has consistently held that any condition in a will which is repugnant to public policy or morality, or which undermines fundamental rights, is void and of no legal effect.
The most instructive authority in this regard is the case of Edith v. Essien, a decision which has now become a persuasive precedent in issues involving testamentary restraint on marriage. In that case, the testator had inserted a clause which similarly conditioned the wife’s inheritance on her remaining unmarried after his death. Upon judicial scrutiny, the court decisively held that such a condition was void as being contrary to public policy, and consequently ruled in favour of the widow, affirming her right to remarry without forfeiting her lawful inheritance.
The court’s position in Edith v. Essien was clear and unambiguous. A man may dispose of his property in a will, but he cannot use the same instrument to impose unlawful or unreasonable restraints upon the liberty of the beneficiary. The judgment emphasized that testamentary gifts are not vehicles for posthumous control over the lives of others, and that a widow cannot be reduced to lifelong bondage under the guise of inheritance.
More so, it is legally and morally unconscionable for a man who entered into a lawful union, without evidence of duress or coercion, to later attempt to condition a young wife’s freedom on a life of forced celibacy. Where a woman, by virtue of her marital relationship, has offered emotional companionship, social support, and constructive contribution to her husband’s life and assets, such sacrifices cannot be erased or undermined by an oppressive clause. Testamentary power must never be wielded as a tool of emotional coercion.
If indeed there were concerns about the character of the wife, particularly if the deceased had reasons to believe that she might mismanage or destroy his estate, there were lawful and dignified ways to address such fears in the drafting of his will. Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu married Frances Chinonyerem Enwerem in September 2013. If during the course of their marital life he developed reservations about her character, the law allows for the testator to make protective provisions, including placing assets in trust or allocating properties solely to children or other beneficiaries. He could have validly chosen not to include her at all. However, what the law does not permit is the infusion of retributive or emotionally punitive clauses that seek to impose personal control from beyond the grave. A will must never become an instrument of retaliation, and testators are bound by law and morality to exercise their testamentary powers within reasonable and humane limits.
Our legal system, even in matters of private will, is not a lawless jungle. It submits all clauses and conditions to what is known as the repugnancy test. In the landmark case of Edet v. Essien (1932) 11 NLR 47, the court held that any rule or condition that is repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience must be struck down, regardless of its customary or personal origin.
A clause that bars a woman from exercising her right to remarry is repugnant to her dignity, contrary to her liberty, and violates her private life under Section 37 of the Constitution. That clause, to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution, is null and void under Section 1 subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution.
Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, if he truly intended to ensure that his wife never remarries, could have chosen not to include her in his will. That would have been harsh but legally permissible. But to include her, and then attach a clause that effectively imprisons her in the memory of a deceased man, strips her of dignity, liberty, and emotional renewal, is legally unacceptable and morally despicable.
Let it be known, any clause in a will that seeks to disinherit a widow simply because she chooses to remarry is unconstitutional, unenforceable, and should be struck down by any court of competent jurisdiction.
We must rise against such barbaric impositions that reduce women to mere property and deny them the basic right to start over. A will is a legal document, not a tool of vengeance. Not a tombstone of liberty.
Yes, I will make a little legal exposition within my knowledge. I never wanted to talk about this matter, but due to incessant calls from followers, friends, and family who wanted to know a little about what the law says, this is the little I can offer.
If the wife he lived with had a bad character, and he foresaw that she may destroy his properties, there should have been a better way to make the will more reasonable and legally understandable, rather than inserting this harsh, barbaric, and obnoxious clause. Yes, he could have chosen not to will any of his assets or estates to his wife. That is within his legal right. However, he should not have used the will as an instrument of retaliation. Such vindictive drafting offends the conscience of the law and undermines the true essence of testamentary justice.
I may not have read the will. I may not have seen it. But if the reports we have heard truly reflect what was written in it, then I believe, and if the woman involved feels aggrieved, violated, or believes her rights have been trampled upon, she has the constitutional and legal right to approach a court of competent jurisdiction. I strongly believe that any fair minded and lawful court in Nigeria would hear her, examine the facts, and do justice accordingly. No one, regardless of their fame or fortune, should imprison the dignity and liberty of another through testamentary clauses. While we honour Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu and respect his decisions in life, justice must remain blind to status. Let no man’s last will become a tool that disturbs the peace of natural justice, or seeks to bind the living to the personal fears, insecurities, or regrets of the dead.
Let the law be wiser than the serpent. Constitutionalism and unadulterated WILL, will surely prevail as it keeps flowing like a river
Emperor Nnabuihe Iwuala Ph.D (Laws)
Customary Court Judge Imo State, and Adjunct Senior Law Lecturer Clifford University Ihie Abia State, 08037247295
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
The article raises important points about the limits of testamentary freedom and the role of law in governing wills. Do you think Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu’s purported clause in his will would hold up in court, or would it be deemed legally null and void?