MURIC Demands Nigerian Law School Exam Suspension Over Hijab Ban

• The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has demanded the suspension of examinations at all Nigerian Law School campuses.
• This demand follows allegations of harassment and exclusion of female Muslim students wearing hijabs during final exams on October 31, 2026.
• MURIC cited constitutional provisions and a 2022 Supreme Court ruling affirming the right to wear hijabs as being violated.
• The organization threatened nationwide protests involving parents and Muslim youths if its demands for suspension and investigation are not met.
• The Nigerian Law School has not yet responded to these allegations.

The organization expressed particular concern that the Nigerian Law School, an institution regarded as a cornerstone of legal education, was allegedly involved in actions that undermine judicial pronouncements.

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has issued a strong call for the immediate suspension of examinations across all campuses of the Nigerian Law School. This demand follows serious allegations of harassment, intimidation, and the exclusion of female Muslim students wearing hijabs from examination halls during the final examinations for aspiring legal practitioners. The Islamic human rights organization is also pressing for a comprehensive investigation into these reported incidents.

According to MURIC, these events transpired on Saturday, October 31, 2026, affecting candidates seeking admission to the Nigerian Bar. The organization, through its Founder and Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, released a press statement on Sunday detailing that numerous hijab-wearing female candidates were allegedly barred from entering examination venues in various parts of the country solely due to their religious attire. Some students reportedly endured standing outside for approximately an hour, only gaining entry after being compelled to remove their hijabs. MURIC has warned that it will mobilize parents, Muslim youths, and other concerned stakeholders for peaceful protests at Law School campuses nationwide if its demands are not met. As of the time of the report, the Nigerian Law School had not yet issued a response to these allegations.

MURIC asserts that the alleged actions constitute a clear infringement on the fundamental rights of the affected candidates. Professor Akintola highlighted that the organization's office was inundated with calls, text messages, and online communications from distressed students, their parents, and other concerned Muslims during the incidents. He characterized the alleged treatment as a "crude, irrational and sadistic" disruption of the lawful educational pursuits of innocent Muslim women, emphasizing the trauma experienced by those involved.

The organization specifically cited several provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, including Section 38(1) and (2), which safeguards freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, encompassing the right to manifest and propagate religious beliefs. Furthermore, MURIC referenced Section 42, which guarantees freedom from discrimination, and Section 34(1)(a), protecting the dignity of the human person and prohibiting torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The organization argued that the "forceful undressing" of students at examination centers directly contravenes these constitutional protections.

A significant point of contention for MURIC is the alleged disregard for established legal precedent. The organization expressed particular concern that the Nigerian Law School, an institution regarded as a cornerstone of legal education, was allegedly involved in actions that undermine judicial pronouncements. MURIC specifically pointed to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in the case of Lagos State Government & Ors v. Asiyat Abdulkareem.

According to MURIC, this landmark Supreme Court ruling unequivocally affirmed that prohibiting or restricting the wearing of the hijab amounts to discrimination. The organization views the alleged incidents at the Law School as a direct affront to this judicial affirmation, suggesting a systemic issue where an institution responsible for upholding the law is perceived to be acting contrary to it. This situation, if unaddressed, could set a troubling precedent for religious freedom within educational institutions across the country.

Lawyers advising educational institutions or religious organizations should note the potential for legal challenges against examination bodies based on constitutional rights and Supreme Court precedent regarding religious attire. This development could lead to litigation or policy changes impacting examination procedures and student rights, requiring a review of current practices to ensure compliance with religious freedom provisions.

Source: Original reporting via source material