10 years after verdict, womenfolk still await property, inheritance rights in Southeast

The Supreme Court judgment of 2014 nullified a customary law in Southeastern Nigeria that hitherto barred female children from inheriting their father’s property. Almost 10 years later, the judgment is not only disobeyed, but also treated with ignominy, BRIDGET CHIEDU ONOCHIE reports.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2014 gave judgment in favour of women’s inclusion in the distribution of their late fathers’ assets in Nigeria. About a decade after that historical judgment, the same practice has continued in most parts of the country, especially in the Southeastern region, unabated.

Gladys Ukeje had filed a suit against family members over discrimination following the demise of their father, Mr Lazarus Ogbonaya Ukeje. The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment, put a final seal on the matter by giving females the power to partake in their late fathers’ properties.

Unfortunately, females from states where such practice operates tenaciously have remained vulnerable to their male siblings and society at large.
The tradition that estranges female children no doubt, has far-reaching implications on society. Not only does it deny women a sense of belonging, but many have blamed it for women’s vulnerability to toxic relationships and domestic violence.  It was believed that a woman who has nothing to fall back on will find it difficult to quit a violent relationship or marriage.

While there may be cultural justification for entrusting family assets to only the male children, the Supreme Court in the judgment, nevertheless, condemned such rationalisation and declared such practice null and void.

Affirming the position of the lower courts on the subject matter, the apex court held that the Igbo inheritance rules that discriminate against women violate the constitution. Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, one of the five justices on the panel that delivered the Court’s opinion held that “no matter the circumstances of the birth of a female child, such a child is entitled to an inheritance from her late father’s estate.

By this judgment, the Igbo Customary Law, which disqualifies a female child from partaking in the sharing of her deceased father’s estate breaches Section 42 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, which state that: “(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:
(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religious or political opinions are not made subject; or (b) be accorded either expressly or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religious or political opinions.

“(2) No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.”

Despite these provisions, society has continued to look the other way. Experts held that such an evolving scenario of cultural practices that challenge existing judicial pronouncements evokes concern, not only for judicial sanctity but also for the social implications of their prevalence.

To them, it becomes more worrisome when such practices are adjudged by competent courts as either repugnant, unconstitutional or do not meet the standards of natural justice, equity, and good conscience.

A Port Harcourt-based constitutional lawyer, Festus Oguche, blamed the non-enforcement of the judgment on the patrilineal inclinations of most African societies, which fueled and fashioned social prejudices that suppress and relegate women to a subservient position that deprives them of all known rights, including property rights even of ones they acquired personally.

He said: “The Supreme Court decision in Ukeje v Ukeje came as a remarkable advancement in establishing the supremacy of constitutional rights over and above archaic and retrogressive traditional practices that impinge on the universality and dignity of the human person.

“This is a radical departure from the case of Nezianya v Okagbue, wherein the same Supreme Court in 1963 condemned any attempt by a widow to succeed to the personal or real estate of her deceased husband in obeisance to customary law, regarding it as ‘absolute nonsense’ for a widow who herself is regarded as property to turn round to claim the property of the husband.

“Even prior to Ukeje v Ukeje, the Supreme Court had in Anakwe v Anakwe put the culture that disinherit a daughter from her father’s estate or wife from the husband’s property to the test of repugnancy. It found that the ‘perpetrators of such culture should be punished punitively and decisively to serve as a deterrent, while also admonishing counsel representing such perpetrating clients, though learned, appear comfortable in identifying, endorsing and also approving of such demeaning custom.”

Oguche described as unfortunate, the fact that the fruits of that landmark decision were yet to be fertilised among families and communities across the country owing largely to the failure of appropriate institutions of government to engage in a comprehensive sensitisation network.

“This clearly explains why, despite the expected gains inherent in Ukeje, these rights are ignored by traditional systems that act more in the breach of the law as pronounced in that judgment than its compliance with its ratio and principles,” he said.  For the lawyer, the extant judgment should serve as a pedestal for continued advocacy for better education and awareness of legal development.

“The National Human Rights Commission is the institution enabled under the law to handle matters pertaining to human rights and ensure that such rights are recognised and enforced in social settings through strong and consistent advocacy and sensitisation programmes.

“I state without equanimity that the Commission has failed in this responsibility, particularly in the Ukeje situation, to educate the populace on the legal implications of that decision through a properly enhanced advocacy network.

“The National Orientation Agency has its statutory roles to play in this regard but it also failed totally, and that explains why we still have the prevailing ambience of violation of gender property rights.

“It must also be noted that campaigns targeted at urban elites may not have the needed impact in rural communities where the practices and deprivations are still prevalent unabatedly,” Oguche said.

The National President of the National Council for Women Societies, Lami Adamu Lau, said the issue calls for renewed dialogue as it greatly affects women.

Lau described the practice that excludes daughters from inheritance as a form of discrimination and violence against women, and subsequently, called on the government to intervene towards ending the menace.

“In the North, especially with regards to Muslim women, the issue of female inheritance is already designed but these days some people write their Will. Generally, this is something we need to talk about because it is affecting so many women. We need to advocate how laws concerning inheritance should be obeyed.

“We need to educate one another as women. When it comes to obeying the law, even some of us parents are guilty because they don’t want their children to be exposed to the realities.

“All these things were seen as taboo before but with time, people have started understanding, especially with the increase in the number of Non-Governmental Organisations. I believe we are going to reach the promised land, though not immediately but with the growing number of advocacy groups, we will achieve results.”

In his reaction, the National President of the Human Right Writers Association (HURIWA), Emmanuel Onwubiko, blamed parents, especially from Southeast Nigeria. According to him, people should not wait for the court to compel them into doing what is right.

“That aspect of practice where girls or women are barred from inheriting assets belonging to their father when he dies or even when he is alive is an anachronistic practice that contradicts modern day practices.”

Onwubiko held that ending such discriminatory practice begins with individual families recognising that every child matters and every gender is equal and the same.

“If a person follows a particular faith or belief system, he ought to know that the giver of children is God, and that no matter what science has done in terms of trying to select the gender of an unborn child, God is still a determinant factor in the sex of a child.

“What about parents who have only female children and have a lot of assets? A lot of billionaires in Nigeria do not have male children. Will you say that those girls should not inherit those assets? I am talking about Igbo rich people because this problem affects the Igbos more than it does to Hausa or Yoruba.

“The Yorubas don’t have that problem because everybody partakes in the sharing of their father’s property.”
Onwubiko stressed that since the matter was decided by the nation’s highest court, the responsibility to enforce it rests on the government at all levels as well as law enforcement agencies, especially the police.

“Also, the affected South-East state governments should take it upon themselves to publicise that judgment using Igbo language to sensitise everybody about the judgement.

“It is something that even contradicts the popular belief that Igbos are very advanced in terms of thinking and modus operandi. If Igbos are said to be advanced in terms of Western education, travels and exposures all over the globe, it is antithetical to see them practice something that is very primitive.

“It is a primitive practice for parents or a particular society to deny the female members of the family their rights to ownership of their father’s properties.”

On the way forward, Onwubiko stated that so long as the Supreme Court judgment remained valid, it was binding on all authorities including states, local governments and traditional institutions.

“So, there is no need to even ask States Houses of Assembly to pass a law recognising that judgment because it is automatically enforceable, the law enforcement authorities in the country and the South-East governors should wake up and do the needful.”

“With the Supreme Court interpreting the law on inheritance, every customary law that hands over the ownership of the father’s properties to the male children is null and void. The Supreme Court is the most legal institution in the country and when they make pronouncements, it becomes law.”

Adding: “I wish we had the resources in HURIWA, we would have gone to court to challenge that particular provision in the customary law because it is not consistent with the Constitution on freedom from discrimination.

“The state administrations need to step in and sensitise the people. The traditional rulers are not using their initiatives, they need to take it upon themselves but the problem we have in the South-East is that the traditional institution is marginalised and not well protected.

“If they are well funded, they ought to have launched this kind of initiative to enlighten the people about the development of laws that directly affect and impact their customs and traditions,” Onwubiko stated.

Dr Udo Igwe of Abia State University said she was a victim of the practice. She explained she was excluded from partaking in her late father’s property based on her gender.

According to her, the non-enforcement of the court’s judgment among Igbo people stemmed from a strong attachment to culture and traditions.
“They will tell you that it is their culture and that the court will not impose its judgment on them. I doubt if they will ever implement it. It is a no-go area for the women.”

For Igwe, ignorance is secondary. She blamed the development on the selfishness of the people. Even though there are few exceptional cases, she put the percentage of implementation at below five per cent.

“If you value it in terms of percentage, up to 95 per cent of Igbo people do not believe in giving the girl-child anything.

“They will tell her to go and get married where she will have a say and the right to inheritance. To me, that has made Igbo girls to always aspire to acquire wealth and not rely on their families.”

On what an average Igbo man feels about the judgment, she said: “To them, the tradition is superior to the apex court’s judgement. How many of them are even aware of the judgment on Ukeje v Ukeje suit?

To chart ways forward, Dr Igwe tasked the government and relevant authorities on enlightenment campaign.
“I will suggest teaching upon teaching. Festive periods should also be leveraged to educate people on the judgment. It should be brought up during town hall meetings and family reunions, not necessarily for the older generations but for the younger ones so that they are informed and better equipped to make the right decisions.

“That is the reason a woman without a male child is mute. And that is also the reason a man goes for more than one wife just to get male children.
“It starts from the orientation and the mentality that male children are the heirs to the family, but every child is important – male or female. In Yoruba land, every child is important and has access to the father’s property. So, they are satisfied with either male or female children.

“Therefore, the mentality of the Igbo man over who handles his properties after death must be handled first. It is not even about enforcing the judgment but re-orientating the people to know that both male and female children are very important.”

A former House of Representatives member, Sam Onuigbo, also blamed the situation on ignorance of the law by the people and even the customary court judges.

“It could also be a case of ignorance on the part of the customary court judges, because some of them are not well schooled in law, just that they were appointed either by experience or sometimes, civil servants or community leaders.”

He, however, encouraged men to write their wills without discriminating against female children. He believed that such steps would help in addressing the situation seamlessly.

“If a man writes his will and says, ‘my daughter will get this’, I don’t see how anybody can come from anywhere to thwart that. It is ignorance on the part of the customary court judges and ignorance on the part of either the victim or the beneficiary.

“Chauvinism, patriarchy and male dominance could also contribute but again, it is a little bit of ignorance because it is only ignorance that will make someone form a strong head, especially on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court,” Onuigbo said.

QUOTE:

It starts from the orientation and the mentality that male children are the heirs to the family, but every child is important – male or female. In Yoruba land, every child is important and has access to the father’s property. So, they are satisfied with either male or female children. Therefore, the mentality of the Igbo man over who handles his properties after death must be handled first. It is not even about enforcing the judgment but re-orientating the people to know that both male and female children are very important.