There is anxiety in the Nigerian Law School campuses in Abuja, Lagos and Yenagoa over the fate of hijab-wearing female Muslim students who are billed to sit for the final Call to Bar examination tomorrow, Saturday, 31st October, 2026.
The anxiety follows a verbal directive allegedly issued by the Director General of the Nigerian Law School to the effect that hijab-wearing candidates may not be allowed to sit for the examination.
However, a civil liberties organization, the Muslim Rights Concern, MURIC, has faulted the move.
In a statement issued late on Friday night, 30th October, 2026 by its Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, MURIC described the alleged directive as discriminatory and unacceptable.
According to Professor Akintola, the directive has pigeonholed the religion of Islam by stereotyping hijab-wearing female Muslim candidates.
MURIC therefore called on the management of the Nigerian Law School to rescind the verbal directive and allow all qualified candidates, irrespective of their mode of dressing, to sit for the examination.
The alleged directive has reportedly thrown the affected campuses into confusion, with many of the female students said to be uncertain about their participation in the all-important examination which is a prerequisite for the Call to Bar.
”A verbal directive allegedly issued by the Director General of the Law School may become the barrier between hijab-wearing female Muslim students and their final call to bar examination tomorrow, Saturday, 31st October, 2026.
”The directive was sequel to an unfortunate incident in which an hijab-wearing student was reportedly found with an earpod during the examination. It was on account of this that a directive was issued disallowing anyone wearing hijab from entering the examination hall.
”While we do not condone cheating or indiscipline in whatever guise and we recommend due punishment for the offence allegedly committed by the female Muslim student after proper investigation, we take the generalisation of the directive on hijab with a pinch of salt.
”In the first place, Law School should remember that it had taken this road before and it led to nowhere. The Amasa Firdaus hijab imbroglio which began in 2017 is still fresh in memory (https://dailytrust.com/muric-demands-enquiry-on-law-school-hijab-saga/).
*”Secondly, the generalisation is against the law of natural justice. Law School should punish the offender and desist from encroaching upon Allah-given fundamental human rights of all hijab-wearing female Muslim students. It must be established that stopping hijab-wearing ladies from wearing it amounts to stripping them naked and causing psychological trauma. There may be consequences for this and we expect the Law School to know better. No person, not even an institution, is above the law.*
*”Thirdly, the alleged directive has pigeonholed the religion of Islam by stereotyping hijab-wearing female Muslim candidates.*
”In the fourth place, international humanitarian law posits that no person may be punished for acts that he or she did not commit. This is the spirit of the Geneva Convention (GCIV Art. 33). It contends that the collective punishment of a group of persons for a crime committed by an individual is forbidden.
*”The sixth rationale envisions a worst case scenario where students have been caught in examination halls with notes on their thighs. Did the authorities tell the remaining students not to enter the examination hall next day with their thighs? Was the thigh the offender or the criminally-minded student?*
”Hijab is therefore not the offender. It should not be banned from the examination hall. Taking it out on the other hijab wearers amounts to stereotyping.
”It is our humble opinion that the issues raised above are fundamental and the Law School, in its own wisdom, may want to side-step that directive. This is our very strong recommendation.
”There are unverified reports that the Lagos Law School has announced that it would allow hijab-wearing female Muslim students to write the examination. We therefore call upon Law Schools in Abuja and Yenagoa to allow sleeping dogs to lie.”
He argued that such a directive, if true, violates the fundamental rights of the students to freedom of religion and education as enshrined in the Constitution.