From ADETUTU FOLASADE-KOYI, Abuja
Senate is, once again, in the eye of the storm over a
perceived notion in the Nigerian public that it recently passed a legislation on child marriage. Senate’s relationship with the Nigerian public has been anything but cordial and so, when the wrong perception was sold that the country’s upper legislative chamber had ‘passed’ a bill approving under-age marriage for girls, opprobrium for the Senate was inevitable.
Contrary to public belief, however, Senate never passed any bill on child marriage. Rather, what the upper legislative chamber sought to do with the alteration of section 29 (4) (b) is the exact opposite of what it is being blamed for! Senate sought to remove this particular section because it seemed to be discriminatory against a particular gender and was actually in the vanguard to make this provision gender neutral.
For the records, the alteration had already scaled through at the first attempt until Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima, Deputy Minority Leader, introduced a religious dimension to the alteration of section 29 (4) (b) and caused Senate to cast another vote; the rest of which is history.
On July 16, the Seventh Senate kept a date with history when it voted on the report of its Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and even though it didn’t plan for any drama, one of its prominent members made sure the exercise wasn’t devoid of one.
Ordinarily, the process of voting on the 31 clauses slated for alteration in the 1999 Constitution was supposed to be a straight-forward process and was actually progressing smoothly along that line until Yerima got up to speak in the chamber.
It should be noted, once again, that section 29 (4) (b) had been successfully deleted from the Constitution until Senator Yerima suddenly realized what had happened and caused the Senate to reverse itself. Yerima, too, was right. He argued, successfully too, that any alteration or amendment of the aforesaid section is against the Second Schedule, Part I, Item 60 of the Constitution.
“It states that the National Assembly shall not make any law that amends Islamic law..” Yerima argued.
Before then, the Senator Ike Ekweremadu-led Constitution Review Committee (CRC) had recommended in its report that section 29 (4) (b) which deals with Renunciation of Citizenship be deleted. The provision spells out the age when a Nigerian can renounce his/her citizenship.
Senator Sani Yerima opposed the first alteration which saw 75 Senators approve that section 29 (b), which says that, “Any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.” be deleted.
Senate President David Mark noted Yerima’s objection with a further explanation that when it becomes necessary to re-visit the said section, Senate will do so. The chamber, thereafter progressed with the alteration of the clauses as recommended by its CRC.
But Yerima was not done yet. Shortly after the chamber began amendment of the Second Schedule of Part II of the Constitution, which devolves more powers to the states, he, surprisingly, moved a motion vide Order 43 (Personal Explanation) of the Senate Standing Orders.
He reminded the Senate President that the alteration is against Islamic law and so, the Senate should re-visit it because what the chamber has done is unconstitutional. Again, Mark agreed to “re-visit it.”
As the chamber seemed to progress, Yerima was not pacified. Speaking from his seat, with a raised voice, Yerima demanded “a re-vote of section 4. You’ve ordered a re-vote of some clauses here…I demand a re-vote and if it dies here, then, let it die…” From the public gallery, it became obvious that Yerima had succeeded in rallying a section of the chamber as some Senators were seen discussing in pairs
As Mark was in the process of explaining to him that the chamber had decided and that, he had made a promise that the matter would be re-visited whenever the Muslim community asks for it, Vice chairman of the Petroleum Resources (Downstream) Committee, Senator Danjuma Goje quickly raised the same order and accused Mark of “double standard.”
Goje reminded Mark that he allowed his deputy, Ekweremadu and Senate Leader Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN) to ask the chamber to revisit some clauses that had already been voted upon which to him amounts to “double standard.”
An angry Mark replied Goje. “I take exception to this and I’ve been very consistent. Let us not make issues out of this. I have said it here that when we need to re-visit the issue, we will re-visit it. So, let’s not make this personal.
“I have been fair and I take exception to the allegation of double standard. Besides, controversial matters cannot come under Order 43.”
Ekweremadu then got up to inform the chamber that Yerima, a member of the CRC, had the opportunity to not only impart this information at the committee level and even vote against it but was rather absent at many of the sessions convened on the clauses slated for amendment before the report was brought to the chamber for consideration.
This information did little to pacify or sway Yerima and his supporters. When the clause was put for the second time, only 60 Senators voted in favour of deleting the clause while 35 wanted the statusquo retained.
Conscious of the interpretation that would be given to the two votes on the clause, Senate Spokesman Enyinnaya Abaribe had to quickly meet with the Senate media to put in proper perspective what section 29 (4) ( b) meant. Abaribe strove valiantly to explain that the contentious section only prescribes renunciation of citizenship for a Nigerian and that it should not be confused with under-age marriage.
His wise counsel and explanations seemed to fall on deaf ears because the matter assumed a different dimension once it hit the media the following day.
With the public outcry unabated; Abaribe had to, for the second time on Tuesday, July 23, address the matter again.
Hear Abaribe: “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 1999 constitution as amended in Section 29, (which has suddenly become a hot issue for both informed and uninformed interpretation in the press and social media) states in section 1 S29(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”.
S29(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,’
“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.
“Senators therefore voted earlier to expunge that sub section 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.
“However the revisiting of the voting on that section was to take care of objections raised by Senator Ahmad Sani Yerima a
mong others. He pointed out that removing the clause 29(4)(b) contradicts section 61 of the second schedule of the constitution which restricts the National Assembly from considering matters relating to Islamic and Customary law.
“Revisiting the section was pure and simple a pragmatic approach. It had to be so, considering that the Senate, as the representative of the people, represents all interests and all shades of opinion.
“Therefore, a fresh vote was called and even though those who wanted that section expunged were more in number, they failed to muster the needed votes to get it through. What it meant was that majority of senators voted to remove it but they were short of the 2/3 majority or (73) required to alter an article of the constitution…”
Shortly after, Ekweremadu also had to meet with the Senate Press Corps to proffer more explanations on the contentious clause. He said: “On the issue of Section 29, I want to appeal to Nigerians to please show understanding, to possibly read this Section and understand that the issue has nothing to do with early marriage. It has nothing to do with Islam. Essentially, it has to do with the renunciation of citizenship. So, you have to give it a proper perspective. I want to assure them that in the future, we are ready to revisit it if Nigerians feel strongly about it.
“We have no Bill to approve early marriage. We are not sponsoring any Bill against Islam. This particular provision has been in our Constitution since 1979. Ours was an attempt to remove that aspect so that men and women would have equal footing regarding the issue of renunciation of citizenship. And we will never support early marriage.”
Earlier, Senators Bagudu Atiku and Akin Odunsi defended the Senate decision on the retention of section 29 (4) (b) which they reiterated had nothing to do with under-age marriage for the girl-child.
Bagudu, who presides over the Committee on Interior said the second round of voting which retained the extant provision in the afore-said section was not the creation of the Senate.
He said: “The argument that brought this furrow is the renunciation of citizenship. There was an attempt to remove its second element which relates to a woman who is married and that failed.
“It is a total misrepresentation that the Senate has approved child marriage. Marriage is regulated by the Marriage Act, Islamic laws and Customary Law. What you find missing in these laws is the absence of the definition of the age of marriage.
“Around the world, marriage below the age of 18 is allowed. I am not saying that it is right, but it is allowed. We were not debating child marriage, and that is not what we contemplated.
Similarly, Senator Odunsi simply echoed Bagudu that the Senate did not create the contentious section, and further argued that the provision was extant in the Constitution, adding that the CRC only recommended that it be removed from the Senate.
The Senate CRC, however, is yet to explain to the Nigerian public why it wanted to delete that particular section of the Constitution because before July 16, there was no known controversy on that particular constitutional provision.
Courtesy : The Sun