In light of the advent of Human Rights Law, even the term disinheritance goes into obsolete standard. For women, it is much more distraughtful and an injury than a mere act. Gender based disinheritance is the unfair practice whereby women, daughters and widows are stopped from inheriting property or land from their family just because of their gender.

Human rights holds that every man, woman and child are born free and equal in dignity and in rights and no one should be denied any of their human rights as a result of race, status or gender. The Patriarchal construct of the male child’s relevance exclusively in inheritance related incidents is built on inept misconstrued perception and the distasteful value a woman is viewed as in a family. In the area of property inheritance, it is inherently complicated in the Nigerian Society were custom plays a critical role in major terrains of the country and even more of a challenge when a person dies without living a will behind.

Notably, the Supreme Court has offered critical judicial intervention to prevent the injustice women experience at the hand of a cruel family member whether immediate or extended and also sends a warning to the society. The key concentration of every judicial precedent in light of advocating for women right to inheritance has drawn interest from the 1999 Constitutional provision of the country specifically in Section 42 that expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, among other grounds. This proviso of the Nigerian Constitution voids any disinheritance construct on gender parlance and indirectly upheld fairness and equality for all without discrimination.

Recently in Lagos State, a 28 year old mother of two young boys lost her husband to the cold hands of death. In less than 8 days after the man’s death, the father of the deceased appeared out of nowhere despite having a house of his own hurriedly came and evicted his late Son’s family from their property in impunity while his own family moved in and went to share the deceased’s belonging among themselves leaving the widow and her little boys out in the cold and stranded until the Lagos state domestic Violence Unit intervened. This is literally a more inhumane treatment than even those repugnant customs that the Nigerian Supreme Court held their repugnancy/ constitutional supremacy principle on.

In Mojekwu v Mojekwu, the judgement of the court of Appeal in that instance laid the foundation for the resistance against female disinheritance as it explicitly condemned gender based discrimination within customary inheritance law. In that case the Oli Ekpe Custom of Nnewi provided that where a man died without a male child, his property devolves to his brother or male relatives to the exclusion of his female children. In delivering judgement, the court held that such customs were inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

In that horrifying ordeal that took place in Lagos around the month of July, even the actions of the deceased’s father had no consideration for the male young boys but constituted the inhumanity nonetheless. Although in Mojekwu v Iwuchukwu, the supreme court cautioned that as much as gender based disinheritance is not endorsed, generalizing customs as repugnant without careful judicial reason was faulty.

In Anekwe v Nweke, the case also focused on a customary rule that prevented female children and widows from property inheritance. The Supreme court condemned the custom and affirmed gender equality with emphasis by the court on the proposition that all customs must evolve and be in line with human rights standards and justice.

Perhaps, in buttressing how crucial the Supreme Court has taken the stand against female disinheritance, regard must be given to the position of the supreme Court in the celebrated case of Ukeje v Ukeje were the court upheld constitutional supremacy. In that case, the court addressed the constitutionality of a customary rule that excluded female children from inheriting their father’s properties and unequivocally held that such a rule in all its forms was inconsistent with Section 42 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. The court insisted that no customary law that denies female inheritance can stand on the face of the constitutional provision that empowers equality of all without discrimination.

This judicial precedents are a welcome development for the rights and recognition of all women in the country however despite its landmark impact, the Nigerian society still faces resistance from culture adherents and fanatics and it is figures in that light that the judicial decision were made to estop.In addition, critical efforts must be made to raise awareness on the rights of women and girls in light of the landmark judicial precedent and manipulative polls must not fine-tune marriages as a gateway for disinheritance.

To litigate the entire concept of female disinheritance, victims must have their legal representatives guide them through the early stage processes. Firstly, addressing the issue that victimized them in the first place. If it is a rule that excludes a woman entirely in favour of a man or a rule that permits only a man to inherit and the woman deprived. The form of discrimination in that regard must be documented to establish the relief to proceed with.

Secondly the victim’s relationship with the deceased must be established as it is key for the law court to determine the unlawfulness of the disinheritance. This was the similar position in Ukeje v Ukeje.Lastly, the rule that posits gender based disinheritance itself must be attacked, the judicial precedents cited and the reliefs upheld by the legal representative.

In conclusio

n, the significance of Ukeje v Ukeje and the other related Supreme Court authorities affirms boldly that constitutional scrutiny of any custom is imperative to protect women in consideration of how their vulnerability can be exploited by a patriarchal society. Among other things its emphasis on equality and fairness should be noted in building a modern moral society were no woman whether as a widow or a daughter to a deceased person is denied their inheritance rights.

The constitution and Human Rights law upheld that position long before the Supreme Court caught up with it. Nonetheless, the role of such precedents forms the concomitance that flays and resists discrimination against women and girls.

Arthur Amadi Esq is an Associate at Gredan Legal. His areas of interest include, public interest, human rights and the protection of vulnerable and marginalized groups.

Reference1.