The following information is according to This Day:
Tonbofa Eva Ashimi, has dragged the Federal Character Commission, Attorney General of the Federation and the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki before a Federal High Court in Lagos over the petition against Mrs. Amina Mohammed raising issue about her state of origin.
The suit paid attention to Sections 42, 147(1), 251(1)(Q) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 2(7) of the United Nations Convention 1979 on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, Order 3 Rule 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court Rules 2009. Ashimi is asking the court to determine whether an indigene as defined by the Provision of Part II, Section 2 of the Guiding Principles and Formulate for the distribution of All Cadres of Posits 1997 made pursuant to the FCC Act Cap F7 LFN 2010 is not discriminatory against women and contrary to the position under Nigerian law that a woman married under Nigeria law takes her husbands origin. Ashimi also wants the court to determine whether the provision of Part II, Section 2 of the Guiding Principles and Formulate for the Distribution of All Cadres of Posts 1997 made pursuant to the FCC Act Cap F7 LFN 2010 was not unconstitutional and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, and Article 2(7) of the UN Convention 1979 on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women.
When given the list of the ministerial nominees, Saraki stated that Mrs. Amina J Mohammed, nominated to fill the slot of the state is not an indigene of the state since it is her husband that is an indigene of Kaduna State. The Senate Committee on Ethics however considered the petition along with others but dismissed it. The plaintiff is asking the court to declare that a woman married under native law and custom of customary law in Nigeria is a member of her husband’s family, her husband’s family’s village, local government
In the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s originating summon, Ashimi stated that she knew as a fact that the principle of federal character must be ensured in the president’s appointment of ministers. She stated:
“I know from my experience and those of my relatives and friends (who are women) that a woman, upon marriage under native law and custom, usually changes her last name and bears the name of her husband’s family. I also know that a married woman under native law and custom usually participates in the activities of her husband’s village, local government and state upon the belief that as a member of her husband’s family she is a member of her husband’s village, local government and state. A woman, upon marriage, is generally required to remain with her husband and his family and be buried among her husband’s people upon her death. A woman married under native law and custom needs protection from the law to prevent the whimsical acceptance or rejection of the members of her husband’s village, local government or state. I am afraid of being subject to a whimsical determination of my federal character status by federal institutions, state actors and the defendants. If the court does not interpret the provision of an indigene in the constitution as it relates to a married woman, Nigerian women, including myself, will continue to be rejected, discriminated against and the fundamental element of marriage of a woman belonging to her husband’s family will be threatened. There is real likelihood that the same imbroglio that has greeted the nomination of Mrs. Mohammed may befall me in a near future if this summons is not granted.”
More information regarding the court case is to follow.