Hijab-wearing: Appeal court orders UI, ISI to maintain status quo

The Court of Appeal in Ibadan has issued an order for parties in the ongoing legal dispute concerning the use of hijab by female Muslim students at the University of Ibadan (UI) International School Ibadan (ISI) to maintain the status quo. This directive follows the appellate court's split decision on July 3, 2026, which overturned an Oyo State High Court judgment that had permitted hijab-wearing at ISI. The Court of Appeal had ruled that ISI is a private institution, distinguishing it from public schools where the Supreme Court has affirmed the right to wear hijab. The latest 'status quo' order was made pending the hearing and determination of an application for a stay of execution filed by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), which intends to appeal the Court of Appeal's substantive judgment to the Supreme Court. This development temporarily halts the enforcement of the appellate court's earlier ruling and underscores the complex interplay of religious freedom, educational policies, and judicial interpretation in Nigeria.

The legal landscape surrounding religious freedom in educational institutions in Nigeria continues to evolve, marked by a recent significant development from the Court of Appeal in Ibadan. In a case involving the University of Ibadan (UI) International School Ibadan (ISI) and its female Muslim students, the appellate court has ordered all parties to maintain the 'status quo' pending further judicial action. This order, issued on July 8, 2026, comes after the same court, in a split decision on July 3, 2026, overturned a lower court's judgment that had previously allowed the wearing of hijab by Muslim students at ISI.

This latest directive is crucial for legal practitioners, as it temporarily freezes the enforcement of the Court of Appeal's earlier substantive judgment, which had distinguished ISI as a private institution not bound by the Supreme Court's precedent on hijab use in public schools. The ongoing litigation highlights the persistent tension between constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and institutional autonomy, particularly in the context of school dress codes. The eventual resolution of this matter at the Supreme Court will undoubtedly provide further clarity on the scope of fundamental rights in both public and private educational settings across Nigeria.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is a fundamental human right enshrined in Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This section guarantees every person the freedom to manifest and propagate their religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. Complementing this is Section 42, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion. These constitutional provisions form the bedrock of legal arguments in cases concerning religious attire in schools.

The issue of hijab-wearing in Nigerian schools has been a subject of extensive litigation, culminating in a landmark Supreme Court decision in *Lagos State Government & Ors v. Miss Asiyat Abdul Kareem & Ors* (SC/910/16). In that case, the apex court, in a split decision, affirmed the right of female Muslim students to wear hijab in public primary and secondary schools in Lagos State, holding that the prohibition violated their fundamental rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and freedom from discrimination. This judgment set a significant precedent for public educational institutions across the country. However, the current dispute involving ISI introduces a critical distinction regarding the applicability of this precedent to private schools, thereby opening a new chapter in this complex area of law.

The recent order by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan to maintain the status quo in the UI-ISI hijab dispute is an interlocutory measure designed to preserve the subject matter of the litigation pending the determination of a substantive application. Specifically, the order was issued following an application for a stay of execution of the appellate court's July 3, 2026, judgment, which had overturned a lower court's decision favouring hijab use. The concept of 'status quo' in this context generally refers to the last peaceable, uncontested state of affairs before the commencement of the dispute or the action sought to be restrained. Justice Kenneth Amadi, leading the panel, explicitly stated that parties should refrain from any action until the application for a stay of execution is heard and determined, scheduled for October 7, 2026.

The substantive judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on July 3, 2026, was a split decision (2-1), with the majority holding that the International School Ibadan is a private institution. This classification was pivotal, as the court reasoned that the Supreme Court's ruling in *Lagos State Government & Ors v. Miss Asiyat Abdul Kareem & Ors* (SC/910/16), which permitted hijab in public schools, did not extend to private institutions like ISI. The majority further posited that the students, by enrolling and agreeing to the school's rules and dress code, had effectively waived their right to wear the hijab. This interpretation introduces a significant legal distinction between public and private educational institutions concerning the enforceability of religious freedom rights.

Conversely, the Oyo State High Court had initially ruled in favour of the students, classifying ISI as a public institution and asserting that the ban on hijab violated the students' constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination. The dissenting judgment at the Court of Appeal also aligned with this view, arguing that the appeal by the school lacked merit. This divergence of judicial opinion underscores the complexity and sensitivity of the matter, particularly the debate over whether a school established by a public university, even if self-funded, retains characteristics that subject it to the same constitutional obligations as purely public institutions. The argument of waiver of rights through school undertakings also presents a contentious point, as it raises questions about the extent to which fundamental rights can be contractually relinquished, especially for minors.

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), which has supported the students throughout the litigation, has indicated its intention to appeal the Court of Appeal's substantive judgment to the Supreme Court. This anticipated appeal will provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the application of fundamental rights, particularly Sections 38 and 42 of the Constitution, in the context of private educational institutions. It will also allow the apex court to address the 'waiver of rights' argument in relation to constitutional freedoms, potentially setting a binding precedent that will impact educational policies and religious practices across all categories of schools in Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal's order to maintain the status quo in the UI-ISI hijab case provides a temporary reprieve for the affected students and sets the stage for a critical legal battle at the Supreme Court. For legal practitioners, this development underscores the dynamic nature of fundamental rights litigation in Nigeria, particularly concerning religious freedom and educational access. The distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal between public and private institutions, and the argument regarding the waiver of rights, presents novel legal questions that will require definitive pronouncements from the apex court.

Practitioners should closely monitor the proceedings at the Supreme Court, as its decision will have far-reaching implications for school policies, students' rights, and the interpretation of constitutional provisions on religious freedom and non-discrimination. The outcome will not only impact the specific parties in this case but will also shape the legal framework for religious practices in educational institutions across Nigeria, influencing how schools, parents, and students navigate the intersection of faith, education, and fundamental human rights.