By Obioma Ezenwobodo Esq
Just last week, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) sacked an unmarried female corporal, Miss Olajide Omolola for the sole reason of getting pregnant. This bizarre action has once again has thrown up the issue of unfair labour practices that discriminate against our female folks for the sole reason of being females.
The ‘sin’ of Omolola is that she got pregnant while being unmarried against Section 127 of the Police Regulations. Section 127 provides that:
“An unmarried woman police officer who becomes pregnant shall be discharged from
The Force, and shall not be re-enlisted except with the approval of the Inspector-General.”
The literal interpretation of the above provision is that a single/unmarried police woman has no right of procreation by virtue of being employed in the NPF. In other words, she is forbidden from having a child even when she could not find a husband out of no fault of hers.
The apparent discrimination imbued in this provision is too glaring to ignore. The pertinent question is: does this same provision apply in the same measure to unmarried police men? Would an unmarried police man be sacked for impregnating a lady?
The answer is obviously in the negative as no law or practice support such. Rather, Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(CFRN)1999 (as amended) guarantees right of freedom of discrimination on, amongst other grounds, ground of sex.
Similarly, Nigeria has domesticated International Conventions which frowns at discrimination on ground of sex. Article 2, 3 and 18(3) of the African Charter, General Recommendation 19 of CEDAW and Article 1(a) of the International Labour Organisation’s Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention No. 11 eliminate discrimination on ground of race, ethnic group, colour, sex, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.
Article 18(3) of the African Charter particularly provides that the State shall “ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the women…as stipulated in international declarations and conventions.”
Therefore, to perpetuate gender discrimination against a female police woman based on the police regulation is not only unconstitutional, as the said regulation is void for inconsistency but a flagrant breach of International Conventions.
It is therefore safe to say that the sack of Omolola by the NPF is discriminatory to her as a woman and infringes on her right to private family life guaranteed by section 37 of the CFRN 1999 (as amended). In the case of MISS YETUNDE ZAINAB TOLANI V. KWARA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS (2009) LPELR-8375(CA), the appellant was appointed a Magistrate by the respondent. Not long after the confirmation of the appointment, an unknown petitioner wrote a petitioner alleging that the appellant lied about her marital status and misrepresented herself as a single lady, whilst she was already married, in her bid to secure employment with the respondent. The respondent acting on the notion that the appellant ought to have changed her name to reflect her presumed husband name and that she also ought to have declared herself as “Mrs” and not “Miss”, her appointment was terminated.
In deprecating the discriminatory action of the respondent on the appellant on the basis that she was a woman, the Court of Appeal per Sotonye Denton-West, J.C.A. held on breach of appellant’s right of privacy thus:
“Furthermore, the Appellant’s right to private family life and honour was thus affected by this Singular act of the respondents, believing in the petitioners’ allegations that the appellant is a married woman. Her Constitutional Rights to private family life and enjoyment was thus subject to being breached by the respondents. This subjection of the Appellants’ privacy to spurious petitioners whose aim might be to ridicule her was not intended in the 1999 Constitutions and the universe declaration. The Appellant was protected under article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations’ General Assembly 1948, wherein inter-alia it is provided thus:
“1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”. In conjunction with the provision of privacy is the provision inter alia that “marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.” This is specifically provided for in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the United Nations General Assembly 1948.”
On the termination of the appellant’s job based on discrimination on sex, Denton-West J.C.A further held:
“Would this same measure be applicable to a male if a woman or indeed a faceless woman petitioner claims that the Appellant if she were a male is her husband? The answer surely may or would be in the negative. Therefore why this discrimination against women. Are women not free to bear their names or even their father’s names? In any case, what is the use of truncating their professional career on this issue? Many of these women have been subject of discrimination until recently when institutions become more aware that there should be no discrimination against women as provided for under section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria…”
In addition to Section 127 of the Police Regulations, there are other provisions of the regulations that perpetuate gender discrimination against the women. Section 118(g) provides that the marital status of a woman seeking enlistment in the Police Force must be ‘unmarried’.
Section 124 provides that a woman police officer desirous of marring must first apply in writing to the Commissioner of Police for permission and that the permission will be granted where the intended husband is of good character and the woman police officer has served in the Force for a period of not less than three years.
Section 126 grants maternity leave to only married woman.
The purport of Sections 18(g), 124 and 126 is that despite being of age and competence, a woman will be denied the opportunity of enlisting in the NPG for the sole reason of being a married woman unlike her male counterparts who get enlisted despite being married. Another bottleneck that touches on right to privacy is that for being a woman, she must get permission before marrying and this permission must not be sought until after three years of her enlistment unlike her male counterparts that are not subjected to such ignominy. Another hurdles is that maternity leave is granted only to married women as no provision was made for unmarried women.
In the case of Women Empowerment and Legal Aid v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2015) 1 NHRLR 39 at 57, the provision of section 127 of the Police Regulations was challenged for being unconstitutional. The Federal High Court Per Adah J. (as he then was) in nullifying the provision held thus:
“The most fundamental issue is if this is the policy laid down for the police, does it apply too the men folk. It is not. So it is only issued to women police officers because of their gender as women and this is very much unconstitutional.”
It is appalling that after the provision of section 127 was nullified by the court for being unconstitutional, the NPF is still bent on implementing other offensive sister provisions that deprive female police officers their fundamental rights to freedom of discrimination and right to privacy. The NPF should heed the voice of reason and law by reinstating Miss Olajide Omolola to the Police Force as the court in the case of TIMOTHY -VS- OFORICA (2008) 9 NWLR PART 1091, PAGE 204 – 213 stated inter-alia, that no law – or custom that stands in the way of our constitution should be allowed to stand tall no matter the circumstances.
Written By Obioma Ezenwobodo Esq, Right Activist, [email protected]
