To many, bathing
with blood is the easiest of all sacrifices, doing it at the market square is
an adventure and/or more of an escapade, it makes the doer happy and fulfilled,
ones its commanded by their spiritual leader: If it is enjoyable to the bather,
why would you disturb him?
What matters: As
long as such blood is not the blood of man gotten in an unlawful way and not
the blood prohibited under the law, the bather is fully in order.
There are about
4, 280 religions in the world, Christianity and Islam are just two of the
entire number. How, when, where and what you are born into is likely what you
are going to become and/or practice. Tolerance keeps the world together.
It should also be
noted that, in line with the world social order and spiritual inclinations, If
you ever belief and worship any spirit, and/or do anything more often in a
particular way, you are a ritualist.
By the law, in
some instances, human blood gotten from a bank or through the owner of the
blood in full consent may not be illegal; as being in possession of human
and/or animal blood is not illegal but the means by which the blood is gotten.
Several bloods
were spilled in the Holy Bible and several other Holy books. Both Christianity
and Islam are our borrowed religion in Africa. In the metaphoric sense, there are
bloods of animals meant for sacrifices, redemption and cleansing of the Soul.
Yet, we seem to have forgotten that we are indigenous and purely African the
moment anyone indulges or gets involved in voodoo.
Before I make
reference to relevant laws applicable to the situation at hand, I make bold to
ask: Before the advent of Christianity and Islam, Aren’t we Africans with our
own cultural heritage, ways, religion and beliefs? Were our forefathers not
worshipers and believers in their own world? Of course, our forefathers kept the
world at its best using the best of traditionalism as means of spirituality and
getting to God.
I had followed
lately the inhuman and degrading treatment melted on Osun State Majourity
Leader of the House of Assembly for exercising his fundamental rights to
religion and belief, and I am forced to ask, Isn’t that extremely barbaric?
Several of the
actors and acclaimed saints who shot videos and commanded the law maker to do
their bidding were later reported to be grade one blackmailers who are now
prone to enjoy the rhythm of prosecution and troubles. I don’t feel for them.
The law must take its course:
Under the law,
the video shooters and self-acclaimed community guards had committed nine sins
against the state and the lawmaker viz:
1.
They subjected the Law maker to
inhuman and degrading treatment in overt breach of his fundamental right.
2.
They committed criminal indecent
assault on the lawmaker by caning him and inflicting other injurious marks on
him.
3.
They breached and deprived the law
maker of his fundamental right to his religion and belief which is
constitutionally guaranteed.
4.
They forcefully imprisoned the law
maker for the entire time they kept him in their custody in flagrant breach of
the law
5.
Reportedly, they took advantage of the
situation by blackmailing the lawmaker, the act which is criminal
6.
Reportedly, they criminally extorted
money from him.
7.
Against his constitutional rights, the
lawmaker was discriminated upon based on his religious belief by being shamed,
ridiculed and mobbed.
8.
The mini-mob succeeded in inflicting
emotional, psychological and acute mental disorder and/or temporary madness on
the law maker that he scampered from pillars to posts.
If you see
someone take his bath at the village square, what offence has he committed
under the law? None of course; as long as he never came to take the bath in
your living room, at your doorstep or to do same at/on one of your personal
properties without your permission which on the other hand may amount to
unlawful trespass and other extensive misdemeanors. A market square is a public
place which has no owner, or better described; belongs to everybody for all
lawful purposes.
Section 38(1) of
the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria entitle the legislature cum
victim to his fundamental rights to religion and believe. Our law recognizes
our traditional religion as parts of the major religion practiced in Nigeria;
hence we have customary law and practice duly recognized and underscored by
several precedents.
For
avoidance of doubts section 38(1) of the constitution of Nigeria provides as
follows:
(1)
Every person shall be
entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with
others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or
belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Our law on
religion and belief is straight forward, hence, everyone has the liberty to
manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice
and observance.
By the several
reports of the Osun incidence, the following were alleged:
1.
The lawmaker came to the market square
2.
He was naked
3.
He was bathing with blood for ritual
purposes
By my own
observations:
1.
No one shows any blood to us as
alleged.
2.
By the video circulated we didn’t see
any blood or any exercise of bathing.
3.
No pail/bucket or water was seen, let
alone blood.
4.
We cannot attest if the lawmaker was
the one that naked himself or the blackmailers made him naked.
5.
We cannot attest if he was even
kidnapped to undergo and/or make-stage the entire process.
Assuming but not
conceding that the lawmaker was bathing with blood or actually meant to bath
with blood for any spiritual purpose whatsoever, it is permitted and legal, as
long as it is not human blood gotten by an unlawful means.
Even in some
instance, human blood gotten from a bank or through the owner of the blood in
full consent may not be illegal; as being in possession of human blood is not
illegal but the means by which the blood is gotten.
Performing your spiritual rights in line with
your belief is a fundamental right and it is a universally recognized human
right which is inalienable and/or non-deprivable; as long as you are human.
On the meaning of Fundamental Human Rights,
the Apex court had held in the case of RANSOME-KUTI
& ORS V. AG FEDERATION & ORS (1985) LPELR-2940(SC) J.S.C ( Pp. 33-34,
paras. B-C ) where Per Eso JSC held as follows:
“…what is the nature of a fundamental
right? It is a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which
in fact is antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary
condition to a civilized existence and what has been done by our constitution
since independence, starting with the Independence Constitution that is: the
Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council 1960 up to the present Constitution
that is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (the latter
does not in fact apply to this case: it is the 1963 Constitution that applies)
is to have these rights enshrined in the Constitution so that the rights could
be “immutable” to the extent of the “non-immutability” of
the Constitution itself. It is not in all countries that the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed to the citizen are written into the Constitution. For instance, in
England, where there is no written constitution, it stands to reason that a
written code of fundamental rights could not be expected. But notwithstanding,
there are fundamental rights. The guarantee against inhuman treatment, as
specified in Section 19 of the 1963 Constitution would for instance, appear to
be the same as some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in England contained
in the Magna Carter 1215 – Articles 19 and 40 which provide – “no freeman
may be taken or imprisoned, or disused of his freehold or liabilities in free
customs or be outlawed or exiled or in any way molested nor judged or condemned
except by lawful judgment or in accordance with the law of the land and the
crown or its ministers may not imprison or coerce the subject in an arbitrary
manner” (Underlining mine) In the United States, the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution provides – “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted.” Per ESO ,
Also in AGBAI
& ORS V. OKOGBUE (1991) LPELR-225(SC) ( P. 26, paras. D-F ) the apex court
held on the need for caution of the community not to trample upon the
fundamental rights of citizens by popular enthusiasm: per Nwokedi JSC held as
follows:
“…Much as
one would welcome development projects in the community there must be caution
to ensure that the fundamental rights of a citizen are not trampled upon by
popular enthusiasm. These rights have been enshrined in legislation, that is,
the Constitution, which enjoys superiority over local custom. Freedom of
association and of religion are enshrined in Sections 24(1) and 36(1) of the
1963 Constitution as amended respectively.” Per NWOKEDI ,J.S.C
Section 42 of the Constitution of the federal Republic
of Nigeria (1999) as amended is clear to the effect that no one can be
discriminated against by virtue of his place of birth, deformity, religion, sex
etc. for avoidance of doubt, I hereunder reproduce the section:
42. (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, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or
(b) be accorded either expressly by, 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, religions or political
opinions.
On whether any person can be discriminated
against or humiliated because of his religion or belief, the Supreme court had held
in the case of LAFIA LOCAL GOVT V. EXECUTIVE GOVT
NASARAWA STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-20602(SC) ( Pp. 49-50, paras. D-C ) as follows:
“Section 42
(1) of the Constitution guarantees right to freedom from discrimination. The
relevant section reads – Section 42 (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 government to disabilities
or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject
or b) Be accorded either expressly by, 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, religion 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.” Per
ADEKEYE ,J.S.C
In the light of
the foregoing, could we simply conclude that the fundamental right of the Osun
lawmaker to his religion and belief and the right not to be discriminated
against based on such religion and belief has not being trampled upon?
Aren’t we safe to
conclude that the OSUN LAWMAKER does no wrong if his alleged bathing in the market
square is in line with his religious belief? Don’t we think if same was exercised
in line with his fundamental inalienable right to his religion, he cannot be
disturbed?
I had always
advocated that People should always becareful and/or totally abstain from
participating in any mob action, it could backfire and the consequences maybe
irredeemable.
I recommend that
all those illegal actors be prosecuted forthwith and thoroughly. Aside
prosecution of the offenders, I further recommend that the lawmaker sues all
parties concerned for flagrant breach of his fundamental rights for good
damages and/or compensation.
Richarmond O. Natha-Alade is a legal Practitioner and Principal Partner at
Sun Natha-Alade & Partners (SNATHAP)
lordricharmond@gmail.com
