Bar Exams: Nigerian Law School’s Hijab Rules Under Scrutiny
The Law School’s reproduced dress-code provisions specify black, shoulder-length hijabs and veils, but reports of restrictions during the 2026 Bar Final Examinations raise questions about the applicable examination instructions and how they were enforced.
By Abdullahi Yusuf
The Nigerian Law School’s dress-code provisions expressly list black, shoulder-length hijabs and veils among the permitted attire for female students. Yet reports of Muslim candidates being asked to remove or rearrange their hijabs, alongside complaints about restrictions on long dresses, have raised questions about how the institution’s rules were applied during the 2026 Bar Final Examinations.
At the centre of the dispute is not simply whether the Law School permits hijab. Its reproduced Code of Conduct does. The more immediate questions concern the precise limits of that permission, the examination-specific instructions reportedly issued to candidates and whether the rules were applied consistently across examination venues.
What Rule 5 says about hijab
Part B, Rule 5 of the Code of Conduct for Students, under the heading “Dress Code”, sets out the prescribed attire for female students attending lectures and dinner functions.
For lecture attire, the provisions include black skull caps, black shoulder-length hijabs and black shoulder-length veils. The dinner dress code also lists black skull caps, black shoulder-length hijabs and black shoulder-length veils.
The wording matters. The provision does not offer an unrestricted approval of every colour, style or length of head covering. It identifies specific forms of religious attire and prescribes their colour and length.
That distinction is important when assessing reports of candidates being instructed to remove or rearrange their head coverings. The question is whether the candidates’ attire fell outside the stated requirements, whether a separate examination instruction imposed additional conditions, or whether the restrictions went beyond what the applicable rules permitted.
The available versions of the Law School’s campus documents also require careful distinction. The Lagos Campus Code of Conduct, its separate registration guidelines and the Abuja-headquarters Code do not all reproduce the same detailed dress provisions. They should not be treated as interchangeable documents or as proof that one campus’s registration requirements automatically govern every examination venue.
The institution therefore needs to clarify which version of the Code applies to candidates across its campuses and how the specific hijab provision relates to examination-day instructions.
The examination circular and the reported restrictions
In an incident report dated 31 October 2026, Barrister Firdausa Amasa referred to a circular reportedly permitting candidates to write the Bar Part II examinations in hijab. The circular is particularly relevant because it concerns examination conditions rather than the general dress requirements for lectures or dinner functions.
PEACE Magazine has not independently obtained or examined the circular. Its issuing authority, date, precise wording and relationship with the Code of Conduct therefore remain to be established.
Amasa reported visiting five examination halls at the Bwari Campus. According to her account, candidates wearing hijab were admitted without hindrance in four halls. At the Main Multipurpose Hall, however, she said candidates were required to remove their hijabs and rewrap them like turbans before they could enter. She also said she personally saw two candidates crying at the entrance.
Other accounts attributed to female candidates described difficulties involving both hijab and the length of modest clothing. One candidate said she had been asked to remove her hijab at a dining hall but refused and left the queue. She also reported that some candidates were turned back because their dresses were considered too long, while others were instructed to fold their dresses inside to make them shorter.
Another account described a candidate changing her outfit three times before being permitted into an examination hall.
The accounts also raised questions about whether an earlier indication that the issue had been resolved had translated into consistent practice. One candidate said she had understood that the matter was resolved earlier that morning, only for similar restrictions to continue.
The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) and the Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria, B-Zone, have also raised concerns about reported restrictions affecting Muslim candidates and their modest clothing.
Security requirements and religious accommodation
Examination authorities have a responsibility to protect the integrity of their examinations. Identity verification, preventing the use of unauthorised electronic devices and ensuring that candidates comply with examination rules are legitimate administrative concerns.
However, security requirements need to be communicated clearly and implemented through procedures that are consistent with the institution’s own regulations.
Reports surrounding the incident have also referred to an alleged earpod-related security concern. That allegation is relevant to understanding why examination officials may have introduced or tightened screening procedures. It does not, without further information, establish the justification for every reported instruction concerning hijab or long dresses.
The Law School should explain the security concern, the screening procedure adopted in response and how candidates wearing religious head coverings were expected to comply. Where physical searches or additional checks were required, the institution should clarify the applicable procedure and the safeguards for candidates.
The reported reference to a separate circular makes this clarification even more important. If the circular permitted hijab subject to a particular length or style, its exact provisions should be made available to candidates and consistently applied. If additional examination-day restrictions were introduced, the institution should identify their authority and explain how they relate to the existing dress code.
What the Law School needs to clarify
The central issue is the relationship between the written dress provisions, any examination-specific directive and the instructions candidates say they received at examination venues.
The Nigerian Law School and the Council of Legal Education should clarify:
- Whether the reproduced Part B, Rule 5 provisions remain the applicable dress-code standard for the 2026 Bar Final Examinations.
- Whether the reported examination circular was issued, by which authority and what conditions it placed on candidates wearing hijab.
- Whether the prescribed black, shoulder-length standard applies uniformly across campuses and examination venues.
- What security-screening procedure applies to candidates wearing hijab and how it is implemented.
- Which written provision governs restrictions on long dresses and instructions requiring candidates to fold or alter their clothing.
The answers matter not only to the candidates affected during the current examinations but also to future candidates who need to know the requirements before arriving at an examination venue.
The Law School’s responsibility to protect examination integrity and its obligation to administer its own rules consistently are not competing objectives. Clear instructions, transparent security procedures and respect for religious attire expressly recognised in the applicable Code are necessary to achieve both.
SPONSORED
SPONSORED
SPONSORED
SPONSORED
