A recent judgment by the Plateau State High Court granting indigene status to a Hausa woman born and raised in Jos North Local Government Area has reopened national discussions on citizenship, indigeneity, and constitutional rights, particularly when viewed alongside the findings of the 2001 Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Jos crisis.
Justice C. Donglong, in a landmark ruling delivered on June 9, 2026, held that Fatima Baba Akawu, a Hausa woman born in Jos North to a father recognized as a bona fide indigene of the area, is entitled to a Certificate of Indigene and cannot be denied such status on the basis of ethnic origin.
The court further declared that the practice of issuing “Residential Certificates” to certain citizens in place of Certificates of Indigene is unconstitutional, unlawful, and unknown to Nigerian law.
In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on Sections 42, 15, 17, and 25 of the 1999 Constitution, emphasizing that no Nigerian should suffer discrimination based on ethnicity, tribe, place of birth, or circumstances of birth.
Justice Donglong described Jos North Local Government Council’s decision to issue a Residential Certificate to Fatima Akawu while issuing an Indigene Certificate to another applicant of Berom ethnic origin on the same day as a “reprehensible act of ethnic discrimination” inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
The court also ordered the council to issue an Indigene Certificate to the claimant within 30 days and restrained it permanently from issuing Residential Certificates as substitutes for Indigene Certificates.
Constitutional Rights Versus Historical Claims
The judgment has drawn attention as it appears to challenge some of the findings and recommendations of the 2001 Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Jos civil disturbances chaired by the late Justice Niki Tobi.
The Commission, which investigated the September 2001 crisis that claimed hundreds of lives and destroyed property worth billions of naira, identified disputes over ownership of Jos and the indigene-settler divide as major causes of the violence.
After reviewing historical records and testimonies, the Commission concluded that the Afizere, Anaguta, and Berom ethnic groups are the original owners and inhabitants of Jos and recommended that the Hausa-Fulani community should acknowledge the indigenous ownership of the city by these groups.
The Commission’s report largely approached the Jos question from a historical and communal perspective, emphasizing ancestral ownership and competing ethnic claims.
However, the recent High Court judgment approached the issue from a constitutional standpoint, focusing on citizenship rights and freedom from discrimination.
While the Commission’s report highlighted indigene-settler distinctions as part of the conflict’s roots, the court ruled that Constitutional rights cannot be denied on the basis of ethnic identity where a citizen is entitled to recognition under the law.
Legal analysts note that the judgment does not overturn the historical findings of the 2001 Commission regarding the origins of communities in Jos. Instead, it addresses the legal rights of citizens in contemporary Nigeria and the Constitutional limits of government actions relating to indigene certificates.
Community Reactions
The ruling has been welcomed by members of the Hausa-Fulani community, many of whom described it as a significant step toward equal citizenship and inclusion.
Community leaders argued that many Hausa-Fulani families have lived in Plateau State for generations but continue to face challenges regarding recognition as indigenes and access to opportunities linked to indigene certificates.
They expressed hope that the judgment would strengthen calls for equal treatment of all citizens regardless of ethnic background and encourage authorities to promote justice, inclusion, and peaceful coexistence.
However some Plateau indigenes have criticized the ruling as controversial, noting that its interpretation and application has the potential to ignite further crises in the State.
They also describe the judgement as one sided and unfair as there is no guarantee that Plateau indigenes will enjoy same indigeneship status, rights or inclusion in any Hausa State,thus placing them at a disadvantaged position.
But some observers believe the decision could influence future legal challenges concerning indigeneity across Nigeria, particularly in states where distinctions between indigenes and settlers continue to affect access to employment, education, political participation, and social benefits.
Legal Significance
Constitutional law scholar Professor Ahmed Salisu Garba described the ruling as a major victory for equal citizenship and constitutional rights.
According to him, the judgment reinforces the principle that government institutions cannot create categories of citizenship that discriminate against Nigerians based on ethnic origin.
He argued that the decision aligns with previous judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court decision in Anzaku v. Governor of Nasarawa State, which emphasized protection against discriminatory treatment.
The ruling has therefore become a focal point in the ongoing debate over the relationship between historical claims of indigenous ownership and constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
About The Author
More Stories