Child marriage: The Senate and the people’s fury

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 thewrong perception was sold that
the country's upper legislative chamber had 'passed' a bill approving
under-age marriage for girls, opprobrium forthe 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) andcaused Senate to cast another vote; the rest of which is
history.
On July 16, the Seventh Senate kept adate 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
ReviewCommittee (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 firstalteration which saw 75 Senators
approve that section 29 (b), which says that, "Any woman who is
marriedshall 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
amendmentof 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 theSenate 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 seendiscussing 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 outof 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 cannotcome under Order
43."Ekweremadu then got up to inform the chamber that Yerima, a member
of the CRC, had the opportunity to notonly 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 inproper 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 deliberateon 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 informedand 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 yearsand 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 wasthat
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 among 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 shadesof 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
senatorsvoted 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 tomeet 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
issuehas nothing to do with early marriage. It has nothing to do with
Islam. Essentially, it has to do with therenunciation 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
thatmen 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.