Why Should Female Police Officers Need Permission To Marry?
The allegation by Senator Isah Hamman Misau (Bauchi Central Senatorial District), that the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris, violated Police Regulations by impregnating and subsequently marrying a serving female police officer, has put those Regulations under the spotlight. The IG appears to have reacted by procuring the Attorney-General of the Federation, to slam the Distinguished Senator with two separate sets of charges, allegedly for injurious falsehood in respect of related allegations. However, to the best of my knowledge, the falsity of the specific allegation of putting a serving female police officer in the family way, does not appear to be included in those charges. Accordingly, the question, in my view, is whether there is anything legally or constitutionally wrong with subjecting female police officers to certain restrictions, for that reason alone, i.e., solely by virtue of their gender. Lets find out...
Rules For Enlistment Into The Police
The relevant gender-based rules for enlisting into the Police are Regulations 72(2) and 188-120 of the
Nigeria Police Regulations 1968. With the exception of Regulation 118(g), the same requirements broadly apply to male and female applicants for enlistment in the Force. Those exceptions, however, are all- important, and they provide that:
“The prescribed qualifications for a woman candidate seeking enlistment in the police force shall be as follows: -
(g) Marital Status – must be unmarried”
Conditions of Service of Female Police Officers
It appears that the Regulations recognise that female police officers, are only suitable for “soft” or “non-combat” duties, or roles which involve minimal physical effort or exertion. This seems to be intention behind Regulation
122 which provides that: “Women police officers recruited to the General Duties Branch of the Force may, in order to relieve male police officers from these duties, be employed in any of the following duties, namely (a)Clerical duties; (b)Telephone duties and (c)Office orderly duties”.
It is curious that even though, as a general rule, women police officers are required, vide Regulation 121, to be employed in duties which are connected with women and children (such as crowd control, searching, escorting and guarding of female prisoners in police stations), Regulation
123 precludes such officers from being “called upon to drill under arms or to take part in any baton or riot exercise” - even if, presumably, women are among the rioters. This is clearly odd.
Apart from Regulation 127 which provides that an unmarried female police officer who becomes pregnant shall be discharged from the force (the Rule breached, according to Senator Misau, by the IG), Regulation 128 is also something of a curiosity; it provides that:
“A woman police officer whilst in uniform shall not - (a)Wear face powder or lipstick, or wear nail varnish except those of a neutral
colour; or (b)Wear any article of jewellery other than a wedding ring, or an engagement
ring or a wrist watch; or (c) Dress her hair in such fashion that it falls over the uniform collar; the hair, if
long, is to be pinned or plaited over the top of the head, or if worn in short plaits, the plaits are to be tucked under the uniform cap”.
Beyond the foregoing, I believe that a far more worrisome requirement is Regulation 124 which provides that: “A woman police officer who is desirous of marrying must first apply in writing to the Commissioner of Police for the State Police Command in which she is serving requesting permission to marry and giving the name, address and occupation of the person she intends to marry. Permission will be granted for the marriage if the intended husband is of good character and the woman officer had served the force for a period of not less than three years”.
I believe that this and other provisions of the Regulations referred to above, are unacceptable violations of the right of female police officers to freedom from discrimination under
Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the right
to equal protection of the law under Article III(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, which
provide as follows, respectively: -
(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 practical application of any law 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, religion or political opinions re 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”.
Article III(2) of the African Charter provides that “Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”.
Import of these Rights
Starting with the Constitution, it is clear that Section 42(1) thereof is not absolute, as it is qualified by subsec
tion (3) thereof, which provides, inter alia, that: “Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law by reason only that it imposes restrictions with respect to the appointment of any person under the State or as a member of the armed forces of the Federation or a member of the Nigeria Police Force or to an office in the service of a body corporate established directly by any law in force in Nigeria”.
In this context, it can be seen that the proviso only applies, inter alia, to restrictions with respect to appointments into the Police. These, in my view, include those relating to the ages and physical dimensions of male and female applicants, medical examinations of female applicants and witnesses to the initial enlistment interviews of female applicants, as provided by Regulations 72(2)(a)&(c) and
188(a), 119(b) and 120, respectively. In other words, any restrictions which are not related to appointments or applicable at the point of entry into the Force, are unconstitutional. I submit that, this applies to the requirement that female police officers seek the consent of Commissioners of Police before they can marry. This is simply unacceptable, as it cannot be rationalised on the basis of any legitimate concerns for optimal job performance, public interest or even national security .
The reasons for this, in my view, are only too obvious: why should male police officers be free to marry without any let or hindrance, while their female counterparts cannot? Why should prospective husbands of female police officers, be assessed in terms of their character and occupations, whilst future wives of male police offices are exempt from same? Why must a female police officer, be compelled to serve the Force for at least three years before she is ‘qualified’ to marry, whilst her male counterparts are under no such restriction? The answers are both far-fetched and unconvincing. I believe, therefore, that those restrictions are unjustifiable and unconstitutional. See ASIKA v ATUANYA (2008) 17 NWLR pt. 1117 pg. 484, and ANZAKU v
GOVERNOR OF NASARAWA STATE (2006) All FWLR pt. 303 pg. 308.
Apart from the constitutional right to freedom from discrimination, I believe that the aforesaid Regulations, also violate the right to equal protection of the law under Article III(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. See NNPC v FAWEHINMI (1998) 7NWLR pt 559 pg 598 @ 616 and IGP v ANPP (2007) 18 NWLG pt. 1066 pg. 457@ 500c
Conclusion
It is unbelievable that in the 21st century, female Nigerian police officers are subjected to the foregoing disabilities and restrictions, which are inapplicable to their male counterparts. It is particularly hard to fathom, why they need to submit particulars of their future spouses for vetting as to character and thus suitability. One would have thought such choices are entirely personal, and thus, should be left to the sole discretion of the parties. The obvious question is: if the choice of spouse of a police officer has security implications – presumably - should such considerations not apply to both sexes, without discrimination?.
To the extent that they don’t, does it suggest that men pose a greater security risk than women? How valid is this assumption? Is there any empirical evidence to back it up, or is it based, perhaps, on the realities of a bygone age, at the time (in 1968) when the Regulations were enacted? If that notion was valid then, is that still the case? I submit that, this requirement is a historical relic which has no place in the present age. What is good for goose, ought to be sauce for the gander; if male Police officers are not beholden to their superiors in their choice of spouses, neither should their female counterparts. This should also apply to the timing of their weddings, i.e., it should be without regard to their dates of enlistment into the Force.
"I BELIEVE THAT THIS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, ARE UNACCEPTABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS TO FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW UNDER ARTICLE III(2) OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES RIGHTS..."