Last week’s post focused on territoriality and domicile. Today’s post focuses on the place of origin, which creates a challenge regarding the interpretation of canonical domicile and quasi-domicile in Nigeria.
Within the Nigerian legal system, the ‘place of origin’ may differ from the conventional definition of the territory in which one was born or resides. Section 15 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states that “national integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited”. Section 42 also states that “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…”.
By identifying “community,” “ethnic group,” and “place of origin” in the same sentence, the constitution shows that “place of origin” can be different from the community where one was born or currently lives. The “place of origin” and “places of origin” appear six times in the Nigerian constitution and in the context of other identity markers such as ethnic community and religion.
Since Nigeria consists of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory, one’s place of birth must correspond to the territory of one of the states. Hence, the term “state of origin” is often used to describe one’s place of origin. Although there are more than 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria that serve as identity markers, the state of origin remains predominant because some ethnic groups span multiple states.
The Federal Character Commission Establishment Act of 1996 says,
(1) An indigene of a local government means a person – (a) either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents was or is an indigene of the local government concerned; or (b) who is accepted as an indigene by the local government: Provided that no person shall lay claim to more than one local government.
(2) An indigene of a State means a person who is an indigene of one of the local governments in that State: Provided that no person shall lay claim to more than one state or to a State and the Federal Capital Territory(Subsidiary legislation, part 2, §1).
Therefore, the state of origin does not always correspond to the place of birth or current residence. Nigeria’s state-of-origin norm has significant legal effects, as it shapes individuals’ rights, privileges, and obligations. Hence, one born in a state different from the state of one’s parents does not enjoy all the rights of those whose parents are from that state of birth. Under the Federal Character Commission Act, the child remains an indigene of the parent’s state of origin, even if the child has never lived in or visited that state.
One’s place of origin is permanent and cannot be lost, even if the community ostracises one under customary law. This is where customary and statutory laws conflict. Ostracism under customary law is not binding on statutory law. In other words, even if one is ostracised by one’s place of origin (hometown/village) as a penalty for an offence, the person remains an indigene of that village, local government, and state because Nigerian statutory laws do not prescribe ostracism as a penalty.
Canon law distinguishes between domicile and quasi-domicile. A domicile is acquired by residence in a parish or diocesan territory with the intention of remaining there permanently or has been there for five years. A quasi-domicile is acquired by residence with the intention of remaining there for at least three months, or has lived there for three months (Can. 102). The 1917 Code had allowed the possibility of a double domicile (duplex domicilium), namely, domicile as a place of origin and domicile as a place where one intends to live permanently. However, this was removed from the 1983 Code based on the territoriality principle.
At first glance, the place-of-origin law in Nigeria permits double domicile in canon law as practised in Nigeria. An instance is “Chibuike” from Okigwe in Imo State, who was born in Abuja and currently resides there. Based on canon 107 §1 & 3, apart from the parish priest of Chibuike’s parish in Abuja and the local Ordinary of Abuja Archdiocese, Chibuike’s proper parish priest includes the parish priest of his village community in Imo State. His Ordinaries include the local Ordinary of Okigwe diocese in Imo State. The decisions of the Ordinary and the parish priest in Okigwe diocese bind Chibuike, especially in matters of marriage, ordination, and funerals. It is irrelevant if Chike has ever travelled to his home parish in Okigwe diocese in Imo State.
However, closer examination reveals no double domicile or quasi-domicile. The reason is that domicile and quasi-domicile in canon law are acquired exclusively by residence in that territory. Even with the place of origin law in Nigeria, one who does not live in one’s place of origin cannot claim to have a domicile or quasi-domicile in that territory in the strict canonical sense.
Yet, the peculiarities of Nigerian society and law mean that the parish priest and Ordinary in the place of origin exercise some canonical authority over people who originate there. An instance is the publication of bans, which are often sent to the places of origin. People can also travel to the village to receive the sacraments. More common are funerals done in the places of origin.
Hence, there are sometimes tensions on the extent of authority that the parish priest or Ordinary of one’s place of origin has if the individual does not reside there. There are also tensions between the parish priest of the place of origin and the parish priest of the place where an individual has domicile or quasi-domicile. Managing a possible crisis resulting from this requires dialogue and mutual understanding.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
