SINCE July 16, when the Senate took the historic votes in the current round of Constitution amendment exercise, the chamber has not been at ease. A barrage of attacks from civil society personalitie, the Church and public commentators have targeted the Senate as a bunch of paedophiles, whose appetite to child marriage as akin to gluttony.
The seemingly innocuous plan of the Senate to remove Section 29(4b) of the Constitution, which it considers injurious to women, is the cause of the whole brouhaha. Right now, what has been termed child marriage vote is causing the Senate more problems than the Senators even as adults could contend with.
The Senate’s Constitution Amendment Committee had, in its wisdom, recommended the removal of Section 29(4b) from the Constitution to remove any ambiguity in its application. According to the report put together by the Senate Committee headed by the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, the Senate, in recommending the removal of the section was seeking to reinforce child rights protection.
Section 29 of the existing Constitution reads: ”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 a 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.”
In effect, the plan by the Senators was to remove subsection 4b from the existing Constitution so as to fully re-emphasise that full age of marriage for any woman in Nigeria shall be 18 years; that age being the generally accepted age of maturity.
The recommendation had gone unnoticed during the debate on the general principles of the constitution amendment bill at the Second Reading. Contributions from Senators generally did not touch on the recommended removal of the now contentious Section 29(4b) and it was retained for passage in the Third Reading. Not even Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima raised any eyebrow during the Second Reading considerations.
Hell was, however, let loose on the floor as soon as the section was voted upon on July 16. Senator Yerima raised a Constitution point of Order to explain that the passed provision conflicts with Islamic law and that since the same Constitution had barred the National Assembly from making laws that conflicts with Islamic and Customary law, the voting exercise should be revisited. Senate President David Mark, who presided, resisted the proposal but was immediately greeted by another round of Point of Order by Senator Danjuma Goje, who seized the opportunity of the call for a revote on the issue of pension to accuse Mark of perceived double standard. The statement touched on the nerves of the Senate President, who replied in vehement words. He declared that he took exceptions to any sort of careless use of words and would listen to views of Islamic scholars on Yerima’s position.
But the calls for a revote on Section 29(4b) would not just go away. There was near commotion on the floor as Senators attempted to heckle both Yerima and Goje. The Senate appeared divided but Mark soldiered on. He continued to call one clause after the other for Senators to vote on, just as Senators Yerima and Goje started a wave of campaigns in the chamber. Yerima was seen moving from seat to seat to canvass his position.
Apparently to douse the bad blood that appeared to have been created during the exchanges between him, Yerima and Goje, Mark, at the end of the voting exercise, decided to call for a review of the votes on Section 29(4b). At that time, a number of Senators had bought into Yerima’s argument that deleting the Section was unIslamic.
Many of the Senators had also lost concentration and that reflected in the final votes. The clause which had scaled the hurdle in the first ballot with 75 votes could only muster 60 votes and 39 against in the final exercise. It meant that the clause will remain in the Constitution since the lawmakers could not secure the mandatory 73 votes needed to delete it.
The social media as well as the civil society immediately descended on the Senate for endorsing child marriage. The Senators were portrayed as endorsing an age less than 18 as the marriage age in the country, an action described as hypocritical, going by Nigeria’s opposition to same sex marriage. Women groups across the country immediately attacked the Senate, while a protest put together by notable women leaders was staged in the National Assembly.
Senate spokesman, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, however, rose to the defence of his colleagues, insisting that the lawmakers did not vote for child marriage. He insisted that the Section in question only deals with citizenship and the issues of marriage were not dealt with by the Constitution, but contained in the Child Rights Act passed by the National Assembly in 2003.
He said: “However, while the Senate appreciates and welcomes the healthy debate that ensued within the public on some aspects of the sections that were voted on, which it sees as a veritable feedback that signals the public acceptance and overwhelming followership of the happenings in the hallowed chambers, it is nonetheless bothered by negative commentaries which suggest a deliberate misinformation and distortion of what actually transpired on the floor when the distinguished Senators voted on each section of the report by its constitutional amendment committee.
“For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did the Senators vote, neither did they ever deliberate on any clause that has to do with marriage age. They also did not vote to introduce any new law on underage marriage. The Senators only voted to amend some clauses in the articles that were already in the constitution.
“It is pertinent for the public to know that the section up for amendment had to do with persons qualified to renounce Nigerian citizenship.
“The prevailing view of the committee before the initial vote was that Section 29(4) (a) was gender neutral but with section 29(4) (b) specifically mentioning “woman”, it now looked discriminatory and as such is in conflict with section 42 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination of any form. The committee thus sought for it to be expunged from the Constitution.”
Abaribe explained that while the Senate did not introduce any bill on child marriage or marriage age, Nigerians had turned things around to appear as if Senators introduced the section afresh. “Senators therefore voted earlier to expunge that subsection and it scaled through by 75 votes. Note that under the Constitution, to amend any clause you will need 2/3 of the members of the Senate which translates to 73 votes,” he further said.
“Owing to the objections of Senator Yerima and others, particularly the suggestion that removing the clause 29(4)(b) from the 1999 Constitution contradicts Section 61 of the Second Schedule of the Constitution which forbids the National Assembly legislating on matters relating to Islamic and Customary law, the Senators revisited the voting exercise and then the clause failed.”
Senator Abaribe, however, stated that issues of marriage age have been dealt with by the Child Rights Act, 2003. He said that the Act answered the issues being raised in some quarters about Section 29(4b).
He further stated that “the National Assembly in 2003 had passed “The Child Rights Act” which specifically took care of the fears being expressed in a cross section of the media. The Act clearly states in Section 21: “No person under the age of 18 years is capable of contracting a valid marriage, and accordingly, any marriage so contracted is null and void and of no effect whatsoever”
Section 22. (1). “No parent, guardian or any other person shall betroth a child to any person.”
But on Wednesday, Senate President Mark hosted a league of women activists including former Minister of Education, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili; the Minister of Women Affairs, Hajia Zainab Maina; a former Minister of Women Affairs, Mrs. Josephine Anenih; wife of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mrs. Maryam Uwais and the chairperson of the Gender and Constitution Reform Network (GECORN), Mrs. Saadatu Mahdi.
Mark told the women that the Senate was misunderstood and that while the contentious section had been in the Nigerian Constitution since 1999, Senate’s attempt to uproot it apparently got muddled up.
The Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, in another forum, stated that the contentious section was actually a part of the 1979 Constitution and that it equally found its way into the 1999 Constitution. He stated that Senators believed it was discriminatory and had slated it for removal.
Mark had told the women coalition: “With all due respect, the entire Senate is being castigated because there was and there is still a complete misunderstanding of what the Senate had tried to do. We are on the side of the people; that was why we felt that we should delete it (because) that was what the people wanted.
“We, in fact, are the first people that took the step in the right direction to delete it. It didn’t go through because of other tangential issues that were brought in on the floor of the Senate, totally inconsequential issues, unconnected issues that were brought in.
But he said that while the clause had passed the constitutional requirement during the first voting, some of his colleagues were blackmailed to switch their votes and reject the proposed removal of the clause from the Constitution.
”Let me also talk to my own brothers and sisters who are senators, who were probably blackmailed. That is the fact, because it is in the open; that I cannot also hide it and nobody can hide it.
“They were simply blackmailed, and on that day, if they didn’t do what they did, nobody knows the outcome or how the consequences will be today, because the people outside can say this man, you are a Muslim and didn’t vote for something that is of Islamic interest. If we don’t hit the nail on the head, we may never get it right,” he said.
Chairperson of GECORN, Mrs. Mahdi, had told Mark and the Senators that citizenship is a crucial provision that cannot be toyed with. She also said that the first gift every child will get upon birth is citizenship.
“To protect this sacred gift of citizenship, we advocate for the deletion of Section 29 (4) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“It is the desire of all Nigerians, who treasure our citizenship, to remove this provision that provides that young Nigerian girls, who are not old enough to vote or to obtain a driver’s license, are somehow old enough to renounce their citizenship.
“It is generally accepted that there is an age where mental capacity is presumed and, as such, to provide a basis where girls without this mental capacity can renounce their citizenship not only unfairly discriminates against females but also trivialises this treasured gift.
“Citizenship is and must remain gender-neutral and safeguarded from any cultural, religious or social interpretations or connotations,” she said.
The Senate could have landed on the wrong side of public view for the sake of Section 29(4b) but it has to be understood that the fault is not entirely its making. The framers of the Constitution had planted the landmine in the law book all along. Perhaps, the Senate should get commendation for attempting to remove it. But for that commendation to come in full, the red chamber needs to work on the tendencies that defeated the July 16 attempt.
No comments:
Post a Comment