The
Katsina State University has caused a stir after passing a new
directive around the school regarding religious institutions.
Umar Musa Yar’Adua University, Katsina
The authorities of the Umar Musa Yar’Adua University, Katsina,
Katsina State, have outlawed any other religious or tribal associations
on the institution’s campus besides the Muslim Students Society of
Nigeria, The Punch reports.
The institution’s acting Dean of Students’ Affairs, Dr. Sulaiman
Kankara, conveyed the new directive to all students’ clubs and
associations that were operating on its campus in an internal memorandum
dated January 17, 2017.
A copy of the memo, obtained by one of our correspondents, was captioned, “Re: Registration of Students Clubs/Associations.”
Sulaiman said the new directive was part of the resolutions of the
institution’s management at its 59th meeting, which held on January 10,
2017.
The memo read in part, “The Muslim Students Society of Nigeria is the only religious association allowed to operate in the university.
“All tribal and local government associations are prohibited by
the university. Duly registered departmental associations should be
allowed to operate, but they should observe item (I) above.”
However, sources within the university told The Punch that that the
new directive was unlikely to elicit any reaction from the students
when the institution resumes its new academic session on January 30,
2017.
“The university has never hidden its posture to be an Islamic institution despite the fact that it is a public institution,” one of the sources said.
The state government had last week approved the construction of a
new mosque for Fridays’ Jumat service at the state-owned Hassan Usman
Polytechnic at the cost of N64m.
The state Commissioner for Women Affairs, Dr. Baddiya Mashi, in her
contribution at a press briefing at the end of the state executive
council meeting, made the disclosure.
But a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Norrison Quakers, who is a
pastor at the Redeemed Christian Church of God, described the directive
by the UMYU authorities as unconstitutional and one that could fuel
crisis in the country.
Quakers, who argued that the directive was a specific affront to
Section 10 of Nigeria’s constitution, called on the Attorney General of
the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), to immediately, as the
country’s chief law officer, take issues with the UMYU.
Quakers said, “By virtue of Section 10 of the Nigerian
constitution, we have what is called a secular society, meaning that the
state has no official religion. No component state of the federating
unit is allowed to promote any particular religion or place any
particular religion above another.
“What the university authorities have done, in this case, is to
promote a particular religion or prefer one religion above the others
and that is actually calling for chaos and unrest.
“My position is that the decision of the university authorities
is one one-sided, and what this has clearly shown is that this
particular administration seems to be promoting ethnicity and religion
and that, we must avoid.
“The constitution of Nigeria is very clear concerning our
unity. My position is that all right-thinking Nigerians must rise up to
condemn this directive; it is not something that should be condoned, it
is not something that is acceptable. The Attorney General of the
Federation should take it up; that policy is an infraction on the
constitution and the Attorney General of the Federation is the Chief Law
Officer of the country.”
Also, a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, who is a Muslim, said
the directive by the university authorities had no foundation in the
country’s constitution, stressing that it should be challenged
immediately.
Shittu said, “Clearly, it is a violation of the constitutional
provision, permitting freedom of association. There is no fundamental
right that can derogate from that on grounds of public safety. The
fundamental rights of the students to freely associate and express their
views have been violated directly by that directive. By virtues of the
constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, there is nothing to
suggest that the directive can be accommodated in any of the exceptions
or derogation from the fundamental rights as contained in the
constitution. The directive is constitutional, null and void; it is
ultra vires and it should be challenged.”
No comments:
Post a Comment