….section 277 of the Act supra defines a child as any one below 18 years of age, and sections 21 and 22 of the same Act supra criminalise marriages to persons below 18, imposing a punishment of N500,000 and a 5-year jail term.
The news of the Nigerian Senate passing a law that supported underage marriages has taken to the social media like poking an anthill full of drunken, boisterous ants. Facebook, Twitter, BBM, Yahoo groups, e-mail inboxes, cell phones, and everything but the kitchen sink have all been stuffed with this news, and petitions (to the United Nations and Human Rights Organisations) requiring one to sign in on. This particularly, had a common touch that turned everybody on. I posted a couple of ChildNotBride bits on my BBM, and Facebook account. To me, and so many others, it was a nice bit of crackling, the girl (or the boy) child had been beastly kicked in the shin, so we had to do something. I continued on with the ChildNotBride march (without adequately checking-up the root cause) until… a colleague of mine got me on in the flip side.
Scott Prestwich Charles, a renowed British journalist, submitted many odd years ago that, “comment is free but facts are sacred”. This lights up that before one exercises his freedom of expression, he must get his facts straight-up. Maybe I didn’t adequately straighten-up my facts before I indulged in the popular march, but I believe I did now, before writing this article.
Now, to comment on the present coup de main on the Nigerian Senate, I shall first, state the facts as it was reported, since every logical public discourse must begin with its facts. The Senate has for a while now embarked on the amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). The Senate’s Constitutional Review Committee led by Senator Ike Ekewerenmadu had considered various parts of the Constitution for amendment, which included the terms of office of elected officers, autonomy of the local government, et al. Last week, the Senate considered for amendment certain provisions of sections 26 to 32 of the Constitution, which are entrenched in Chapter III of the Constitution, and which deals with Citizenship. In one of its numerous recommendations, it, the Constitutional Review Committee, proposed the deletion of section 29 subsection 4(b) of the Constitution, which deals with the renunciation of citizenship.
The whole of section 29 is reproduced hereunder.
29 (1) Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation.
(2) The president shall cause the declaration made under subsection (1) of this section to be registered and upon such registration, the person who made the declaration shall cease to be citizen of Nigeria.
(3) The president may withhold the registration of any declaration made under subsection (1) of this section if –
(a) the declaration is made during any war in which Nigeria is physically involved; or
(b) in his opinion, it is otherwise contrary to public policy.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section –
(a) “full age” means the age of eighteen years and above;
(b) any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.
From the afore-listed, section 29 (4)(a) and (b) provide for the purposes of subsection (1): (4)(a) “full age” means the age of eighteen and above; (4)(b) any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age. As earlier reported, the Senate voted to remove the latter, that is, section 29(4)(b), and the vote, which was taken and carried by the required two-thirds members of the Senate (73 of 109) was successful, in favour of the removal. But Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima (ANPP — Zamfara West) raised an objection on the ground that the removal of the provision was “un-Islamic”, citing Part 1, Item 61, Second Schedule (Exclusive Legislative List) of the Constitution, which directs the National Assembly to steer away from Islamic marriages. It states, “formulation, annulment and dissolution of marriages other than marriages under Islamic Law and Customary Law, including matrimonial clauses relating thereto”. Yerima insisted on fresh votes which the Senate president, David Mark, turned down sparking a trade of words between the duo. Senator Danjuma Goje (Gombe) later joined the protest. When the peace of the House seemed threatened, David Mark conceded, and asked that the vote be taken again. At the repeat vote, Yerima’s demand was voted out (60 to 35), but the section could not be deleted as constitutional amendments require two-thirds (78 members) of the 109 member Senate for a proposal to pass.
Before I make my comments and deductions, there arises need to state;
(i) That the Senate does not have absolute power in constitutional amendment. Section 9(2) of the Constitution provides, “An Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this Constitution…shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by the resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states. This proviso as stated, is to dismiss the news-spread claiming the law passed by the Senate is final.
(ii) That the Child’s Rights Act, which was passed into law in July 2003, which by virtue of section 12 of the Constitution is the domestication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1981, is the foundational law today, recognised by the constitution, as relating to Child’s Rights in Nigeria.
(iii) That section 277 of the Act supra defines a child as any one below 18 years of age, and sections 21 and 22 of the same Act supra criminalise marriages to persons below 18, imposing a punishment of N500,000 and a 5-year jail term.
(iii) That the Act is supreme in all matters relating to children except in relation to express provision of the Constitution, which is the supreme law, whence other laws derive their validity.
Howbeit, due to the Federal outlook of the country, and due to the fact that most of the matters relating to children are under Concurrent Legislative List, the Houses of each state must pass it, the Act, into law. As at today, twenty-four (24) states have passed the Act into state laws. The twelve (12) states remaining are; Enugu, Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto, Kebbi, Borno, Yobe, Gombe, Adamawa, Bauchi, Kastina, and Zamfarawa. Besides Enugu, it can be deduced that the rest are core northern states.
Now, my submission.
It’s ad rem to recollect that the section 29 falls under Chapter III of the Constitution, which entirely deals with Citizenship, and has been in existence since the commencement of the Constitution on May 29th, 1999.
The section in contention, that has caused the present onslaught on the Senate, is section 29(4)(a) and (b).
To reproduce,
Section 29(4) CLEARLY states: “for the purposes of subsection 1″
Section 29 subsection (1) CLEARLY states: “any citizen of Nigeria of full age WHO WISHES TO RENOUNCE HIS NIGERIA CITIZENSHIP shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation”
Subsection (1) CLEARLY defined the circumstances under which the definitions stated in clauses (a) and (b) would be applicable.
To reproduce,
Section 29 (4) (a) CLEARLY states: “full age” means the age of eighteen years and above.
This proviso, simply re-emphasises that “full age” shall be 18.
To the cardinal section in contention,
Section 29(4)(b) CLEARLY states: “any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age”
In a stolidly look into the minds of the drafter, the spirit behind this proviso is that, if you are married, for the purposes of renunciation of citizenship, you shall be automatically qualified to do so even if you are not eighteen (18) yet, as in the eyes of the law, you are deemed to be of “full age”. This proviso is CLEARLY unambiguous and WHOLLY refers to the already MARRIED (who seeks security in another country or her country of birth), and not the ABOUT-TO-MARRY (whence the news-spread of child marriage wrongly emanated).
Ergo, the contentious provisions of section 29(4)(a) and (b) deal with the renunciation of citizenship and not child’s rights or child marriageable age (as this is already tackled by the Child Rights Act 2003, supra).
Ultimately, in my simple opinion, I do not think the removal of the contentious section 29(4)(b) will put an end to underage marriages in Nigeria, as I believe the instrument to challenge by proponents in the life of a child is not section 29(4)(b) nor some certified heteroclite like the Yerimas, but for the fierce push of the passing of the Child Rights Act into laws by the states which are yet to do so, and agitation for the amendment of the Second Schedule, Part 1, Item 61 of the Constitution, which precludes the National Assembly from legislating on marriages under Islamic Laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment