
Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs has again taken legal action against his stepmother, Dr. Seinye Lulu-Briggs, continuing a legal battle that has lasted more than five years since the death of his father, High Chief O. B. Lulu-Briggs.
In a new case filed at the Degema Division of the Rivers State Customary Court, Chief Dumo is claiming that Dr. Seinye violated a Kalabari mourning custom by not sitting beside her husband’s corpse. He argues that she should be stripped of her rights to her husband’s name, property, and inheritance.
This however appears to run contrary to the facts, as it is alleged that it was he Dumo who went to great lengths to prevent her from being a part of the burial process or attending the funeral of her husband.
This, it is said, was what prompted prominent Kalabari Chiefs like Chief Ferdinand Alabraba to advise him through a well publicized and reported letter to let her attend her husband’s funeral.
Legal experts, however, say the case has no basis. Dr. Seinye was legally married to the late High Chief in 2003 under the Act, a statutory marriage that overrides any previous customary marriage. The Will, which grants her inheritance rights, has already been confirmed by the courts.
What has raised further concern is that this same matter is already before the Rivers State High Court. Critics say bringing it before the customary court is an act of judicial harassment, a tactic known as forum shopping.
On July 28, dozens of female lawyers and activists gathered at the Rivers State Customary Court Degema Division, in support of Dr. Seinye. FIDA Rivers Chairperson, Emi Jim-George, dismissed the claim of any such mourning custom, calling the case “another way of bullying widows.”
A formal application has now been filed at the High Court to stop the Degema case. The next hearing at the customary court is scheduled for August 18.
This development highlights growing concerns over how cultural practices are sometimes misused in legal battles to marginalize widows, despite the protections offered by Nigerian law.
Disclaimer
Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.