SECTION 42 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly prohibits gender discrimination or any other form of discrimination based on peculiarities associated with a person or community of persons.
It is however, disturbing that notwithstanding this, many citizens in Africa and Nigeria in particulars still find themselves being illegally subjected to crude barbaric and totally unacceptable vortex of discrimination.
One area of such obnoxious practices is the disinheritance of women particularly those without male child/children from the property of the husband.
For the perpetrators of this crude and preposterous practice, any woman who has no male child or none at all is not entitled to inherit anything from the husband especially when the husband dies
In parts of Nigeria particularly in the Eastern axis of the country, this obnoxious practice is rampant.
This is however not supported by law as the law is clear that no woman needs a child whether male or female before being entitled to any human rights, inheritance of husband’s or father’s inclusive.
This has been clearly adumbrated by section 42 of the constitution (supra)
Indeed, any other law, tradition, custom, culture or religion that is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions is to the extent of its inconsistency null, void and of no effect.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has in a plethora of cases, given eloquent expression to the fact that a woman whether with male child or no child at all has rights to inherit the husband’s property.
For instance, in Nzekwu V Nzekwu z (1989) 3 SCNJ page 167 the supreme court minced no words when it held thus “that the plaintiff had the right of possession of her late husband’s property and no member of her husband’s family has the right to dispose of it or otherwise whilst one is still alive”. The court in deprecating the culture disinheriting women from husband’s property, held “In other words, a custom of this nature in the 21st century societal setting will only tend to depict the absence of the realities of human civilization. It is punitive, uncivilized and only intended to protect the selfish perpetration of male dominance which is aimed at suppressing the right of the womenfolk in the given society. One would expect that the days of such obvious differential discrimination are over. Any culture that disinherits a daughter from her fanther’s estate or wife from her husband’s property by reason of God instituted gender differential should be punitively and decisively dealt with. The punishment should serve as a deterrent measure and ought to be meted out against the perpetrators of the culture and custom. For a widow of a man to be thrown out of her matrimonial home, where she had lived all her life with her late husband and children, by her late husband’s brothers on the ground that she had no male child, is indeed very barbaric, worrying and flesh skinning. It is indeed much more disturbing especially where the counsel representing such perpetrating clients, though learned, appear comfortable in identifying, endorsing and also approving of such a demeaning custom…”
Similarly the apex court Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C ( Pp. 36-37, paras. B-D), in the case of ANEKWE & ANOR v. NWEKE (2014) LPELR-22697(SC ) deprecated this babaric practice thus “The impropriety of such a custom which militates against women particularly, widows, who are denied their inheritance, deserves to be condemned as being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. The repulsive nature of the challenged custom is heightened further in the case at hand where the widow of the deceased is sought to be deprived of the very building where her late husband was buried. The condemnation of the appellants’ act is in the circumstance without any hesitation or apology.”
See also the cases of UGBENE v. UGBENE & ORS (2016) LPELR-42110(CA) MOJEKWU v. MOJEKWU (1997) LPELR-13777(CA) AMUSAN & ANOR v. OLAWUNI (2001) LPELR-6976(CA) and OKAFOR v. ISITORH & ANOR (2015) LPELR-25892(CA)
In addition, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 punishes denial/violation of the inheritance/succession rights of a widow punishable with maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment or and fine of N500,000.00. while the punishments for attempting such offence or assisting and aiding such offence is a maximum of 1year imprisonment and or fine of #200,000.00.
Clearly therefore, a woman with or without a male child has every right to inherit her husband’s property just like they too can inherit the estate of the wife.
We must learn to abide by the law and those who still practice the discriminatory culture should seek their fortunes elsewhere as the law will decisively catch up with them
Besides the law, the practice can only be reserved for the caveman and thrash can of history. It is demonic, uncivilised and should have no space in community of civilised people
Having a male child is not and should not form the prerequisite for inheritance just a absence of a child whether male or not should not operate as factor to disentitle a wife to the husband’s property.
Any woman who is forced to suffer such deprivation should not sleep on her right but must stand firm for right.
Always consult your Lawyer for necessary action for whenever a right is breached, there is a remedy.
When this position of the law is honoured by all and sundry, the acrimony, violence and generational disputes characterizing inheritance/succession matters in our society will be minimized if not eradicated.
The soul of the departed husband will also rest in eternal peace as denial of inheritance right to a wife because she has no male child or any child at all definitely doesnot operate to honour the soul of the departed.
The world will also be better if governed by the rule of law rather than crude culture of impunity and deprivation and brazen lawlessness.
