Court of Appeal Rules Against Hijab Use At UI International School

The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan recently overturned a judgment of the Oyo State High Court, ruling against the use of hijab by female Muslim students at the University of Ibadan International School (ISI). In a split decision, the appellate court held that ISI is a private institution, thereby distinguishing it from public schools where the Supreme Court had previously affirmed the right to wear hijab. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the students, by enrolling and agreeing to the school's rules, had voluntarily waived their right to wear the hijab as part of their uniform. This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of religious freedom in private educational institutions in Nigeria, setting a precedent that differentiates the application of constitutional rights based on the public or private nature of a school.

A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan has reignited the contentious debate surrounding religious attire in Nigerian schools, particularly the use of the hijab by female Muslim students. The appellate court, in a split judgment delivered on July 3, 2026, overturned a previous ruling by the Oyo State High Court that had permitted female Muslim students of the University of Ibadan International School (ISI) to wear the hijab with their school uniforms. This development marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal discourse on religious freedom, educational policies, and the secular nature of institutions in Nigeria.

The core of the dispute revolves around the extent to which constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion apply within the confines of private educational institutions, especially when such practices conflict with established school dress codes. The Court of Appeal's pronouncement, which distinguishes between public and private schools in the application of fundamental rights, carries profound implications for school managements, religious bodies, parents, and legal practitioners alike. This article will delve into the background of the case, analyze the Court of Appeal's reasoning, and explore the broader legal ramifications for religious freedom and educational policy in Nigeria.

The legal framework for religious freedom in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in Section 38(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which guarantees every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest and propagate their religion in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. Additionally, Section 42 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds such as religion. These provisions form the bedrock of arguments for the right to wear religious symbols like the hijab in public spaces, including schools.

The specific dispute at the International School, University of Ibadan, commenced in 2018 when some Muslim students challenged the school's prohibition of the hijab as part of its uniform policy. The matter escalated to the Oyo State High Court, where Justice Moshood Ishola, in a judgment delivered on May 22, 2024, ruled in favour of the students. The High Court held that the school's ban infringed upon the students' constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination, crucially categorizing ISI as a public institution. This decision aligned with a previous landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered on June 17, 2022, which affirmed the right of female Muslim students to wear the hijab in public primary and secondary schools in Lagos State. Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the management of ISI lodged an appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in its majority decision delivered by Justice Biobele Georgewill, with Justice K.I. Amadi concurring, fundamentally diverged from the High Court's classification of the International School, University of Ibadan. The appellate court held that ISI is a private school, not a public institution, a distinction that proved central to its judgment. This classification was crucial because the Court of Appeal explicitly stated that the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment, which permitted the use of hijab in schools, was specifically in respect of public schools in Lagos State and could not be automatically applied to private institutions.

Furthermore, the majority judgment introduced the concept of waiver of rights. Justice Georgewill held that the right to practice one's religion is a personal right that can be voluntarily waived. The court found that by enrolling their children and signing an undertaking to abide by ISI’s rules and regulations, including its dress code, the parents and students had effectively waived their right to wear the hijab. This interpretation suggests that entry into a private institution, with its established rules, implies an acceptance of those rules, even if they impinge on certain fundamental rights that might otherwise be exercisable in a public setting.

Justice Fadawu Umar, however, delivered a dissenting judgment, upholding the decision of the Oyo State High Court and arguing that the appeal lacked merit. The dissent underscores the complexity and differing judicial interpretations of fundamental rights in the context of educational institutions. The majority's emphasis on the private nature of ISI and the concept of waiver creates a significant legal distinction, potentially limiting the scope of religious freedom in private educational settings compared to public ones. While the Court of Appeal did acknowledge a violation by the school for locking students in the library, reducing the compensation awarded by the High Court from N1 million to N200,000, this was a minor point compared to the substantive issue of hijab use.

This ruling contrasts sharply with the Supreme Court's stance in the Lagos State hijab case, where the apex court affirmed that wearing the hijab was an Islamic injunction and an act of worship, and its prohibition in public schools violated fundamental rights. The Court of Appeal's current decision effectively carves out an exception for private schools, suggesting that their autonomy in setting dress codes, particularly when agreed upon by students and parents at enrollment, can supersede the exercise of religious freedom in that specific context. This raises questions about the balance between institutional autonomy, contractual agreements, and the inalienable nature of fundamental human rights.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in the University of Ibadan International School hijab case marks a critical development in Nigerian jurisprudence concerning religious freedom in educational institutions. By drawing a clear distinction between public and private schools and introducing the concept of waiver of rights through adherence to school regulations, the court has provided a new layer of interpretation to Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution. This decision empowers private institutions to enforce their dress codes, provided there is a clear agreement at the point of enrollment, potentially limiting the manifestation of religious practices within their premises.

For legal practitioners, this ruling necessitates a careful review of school enrollment agreements and policies, particularly for private educational institutions. Advising clients, whether school managements or parents, will require a nuanced understanding of the public-private distinction and the implications of contractual waivers on fundamental rights. The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) and the ISI Muslim Parents Forum (ISIMPF) have already indicated their intention to appeal to the Supreme Court, signaling that this legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court's eventual pronouncement on this matter will be eagerly awaited, as it will provide definitive clarity on the scope of religious freedom in private schools and potentially reshape the landscape of educational policy and human rights in Nigeria.