By Solomon A. Ikongshul
I read with awe the move by lawmakers in Anambra State to curb spending at burials. It is pertinent to consider the legality or otherwise of such moves by the Anambra State House of Assembly so as to praise or condemn such in our legal system.
Let us first consider the intention of the Bill initiated by Charles Ezeani representing Anaocha 2 Constituency of the state. According to the story in Daily Post of April 16, Charles said “burial rites constitute 60 to 70 per cent of socio-cultural activities in the state, where the wealthy showcase their economic might.”
Thus, the Bill “seeks to curtail outrageous demands on families of the deceased by traditions and customs enforced by elders, without any consideration for financial capacity”.
Moreover, “the trend also created room for unhealthy competition among families and friends, each trying by every means to outshine the other.” He concluded by saying that “this unacceptable behaviour has informed the need for a law to control burial ceremonies and other related matters.” The aim is “…to encourage the celebration of people when they are alive.”
The features of the future law in Anambra includes outlining cost cutting measures, revenue generation for the state, guidelines on duration, ways and manner burials should be organised.
Furthermore, the argument in favour of this Bill which has passed its second reading as posited by the Speaker, Rita Maduagu, is that the bill will help people feel less pain when they are bereaved and not incur debts after the loss of their loved ones.
Burial rights are funerary customs which comprise the complex of beliefs and practices used by a culture to remember and respect the dead.
According to freedictionary, it is a ceremony or group of ceremonies held in connection with the burial or cremation of a dead person.
It can also be referred to as death rites and comprises any of the acts or customs employed at the time of death and burial.
In Nigeria, such rites differ across different cultures. As a matter of fact, Africa as a whole considers the burying of their dead an important tradition and in some parts of Nigeria, it may last for weeks while some may take just days, and others, that very day alone. It is also cultural in some areas to slaughter a good number of fattened oxen in honour of the dead.
In the recent past, ‘mourners’ were hired to attend burials and render their services of gracing the burial grounds with their howls, yells and weeping, even to the extent of rolling on the ground; this did not go without pecuniary benefit such that, hilariously enough, they could abruptly suspend their action to negotiate their bargain. This practice is still in place in some parts of Nigeria.
A careful perusal of the above consideration can lead us to one irresistible conclusion namely, to agree with Charles that such rites constitute 60 to 70 per cent of socio-cultural activities in the state; but to agree more that it is where the wealthy showcase their economic might begs more questioning.
If the culture and tradition of honouring the dead is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience, such can be expunged from the society. From this situation, what then is the yardstick? Can it be said that the act of expressing one’s feelings towards his deceased via elaborate spending in the best way he can, fails the repugnancy test?
The answer is NO! The spending as we know in this context includes invitation of friends from far and near, provision of accommodation and other logistics where necessary, buying of drinks, food, hiring of live band if needed; this is according to the strength of family(ies) or chief mourner(s).
What about those who purchase golden caskets? Or who dig expensive underground graves? Or who construct transparent graves to enable them see their deceased from time to time? What about those who have, categorically in their wills, put in place measures and burial expenses and description of the nature of burial and friends to invite. Will such laws vitiate the dead man’s last wish or testamentary depositions? There are more things to check in order to ‘ban’ the custom, culture or tradition of a given society than using economic means as justification. It is a lame excuse and an attempt to unjustly raise revenue for the government as earlier stated in the intent. This is more or less robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Constitutionally, such attempts by the Bill offend S. 39 of the Constitution which spiritually and physically guarantees right of expression and S. 17(1) and (2) – THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVES OF the State towards her citizens.
You can legislate on legal ways to source money but not how to judiciously spend it. Does the law consider the money ‘spent’ in brothels with sex workers too? There should be no wrong hiring undertakers, mourners or dancers or entertainers by those who can. Where, however, the proposed law entails protection of the destitute, or indigent or penniless from exploitation, then that will be welcomed with an acclamation; even the bankrupt and beggared can sing praises.
I conclude by saying, that as the bill aims to reduce the pains and expenses of the bereaved, it should not in any way be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, lest it be null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.
Ikongshul writes from Abuja