I have closely followed the debate on different fora and I am disappointed that many of the people engaged in the debate do not actually understand the issues or the law. Those who are supporting Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima assume that it is a “plot against Islam and an attempt to impose Western values” on them. Those supporting the amendment believe that they are fighting to save young girls from the abuse and exploitation of “child marriage,” which they argue is promoted by Section 29 (4) (b) of the Constitution. Both sides are wrong. The amendment is not about the age of marriage. Without understating the dangers of “child marriage,” which I am going to touch later, age of marriage is only used as a red herring. What, then, are the issues? Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution talks about the right of a Nigerian citizen of “full age” to renounce his/her Nigerian citizenship. “Full age,” for the purpose of this section, is defined as “18 years and above”. But Sub-section 4 (b) made an exception for married women. According to the contentious clause in Section 29 (4) (b), “any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.” Is this clause a good or a bad thing? Those who are supporting the amendment (deleting) of Section 29 (4) (b) in the Senate argue that the section is “discriminatory against women and promotes child marriage”. In my opinion, this is a mischaracterisation of Section 29 (4) (b). It has nothing, directly, to do with regulating the age of marriage. It applies to women who are already married. In fact, one may argue that the clause actually is an empowerment for the married women, because it gives them the power to renounce their citizenship, irrespective of their age, if they so wish. Why is this issue so controversial? There are two possible explanations. First, the objection against the amendment of Section 29 (4) (b) on the floor of the Senate was made by Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima, former governor of Zamfara State,and the person who introduced Sharia in his state in 1999. Senator Yerima was criticised by many Nigerians in 2009 for marrying an Egyptian girl who was said to be below the age of 18 years. Some members of the Senate and the public assumed that because it was Yerima who raised the objection against the amendment, he must have had a sinister motive of promoting child marriage. Secondly, Yerima didn’t help matters when he attempted to use religion to argue against deleting the clause. On this issue, the Senate was unfortunately divided along religious lines. Majority of the Muslim Senators from the North supported Yerima and majority of the Christian senators from the South supported the amendment. Few senators, there were, who didn’t vote in this sentimental and polarising way. What happened in the Senate was followed by heated debate on social media. Many self-appointed scholars used the occasion to give religious justifications to a matter that has nothing to do with religion. Those bent on mischief or love to disparage other people’s way of life or religion use the occasion to criticise and insult Islam and Muslims. I want to point out that the National Assembly has no constitutional power or jurisdiction over marriages conducted under Islamic law and customary law. Majority of the marriages in Nigeria are conducted under customary and Islamic law. According to item 61, Part 1 of the Second Schedule under the Exclusive List which listed matters over which the National Assembly has legislative powers, the power of the National Assembly is on “The formation, annulment and dissolution of marriages other than marriages under Islamic and Customary laws, including matrimonial causes relating thereto.” Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a separate debate. It is clear, however, that only states have the legislative power to enact laws on Islamic and customary marriages. That is why the Child Rights Act, which is against child marriage,passed by the National Assembly into law, is only applicable in states that have passed the Act into law. Majority of the states in Northern Nigeria are yet to pass the Child Rights Act into law. Unfortunately, even in states that have passed the Act into law, it is rarely enforced. Contrary to what some major Nigerian newspapers are reporting, there is no bill to legalise child marriage before the National Assembly. If there is one, they should mention the title of the bill and person sponsoring the bill. The recent campaign and petition against child marriage by some activists, though well intentioned, misses the mark. It is shameful that we can neither trust our politicians nor our press on this issue. The senators mischaracterised the issue and the press misled Nigerians through bad reporting. This controversy is unfounded.(my voice finally and last on this issue)
Posted on: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:27:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015