I think a lot of us are ignorance of what the issue is about and the contradiction in Nigeria constitution. I bet you that Yerima himself do not understand what exactly the issue was because if he does he would have realize that the law, i mean that particular subsection 4b of section 29 of the Nigeria constitution would favor him if it is removed rather than defending it. But really if Yerima wanted the constitution to acknowledge underage marriage, then he should be more concern about the Child Act of 2004 which abrogate the subsection 4b of section 29 of the constitution.

Please see the section 29 below, pay more attention to subsection 4.

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.

For the purpose of renouncing your citizenship as a Nigeria ALONE, subsection 4b of this section i.e. section 29, allowed any Nigeria under 18 years who is married, (either through force marriage, betrothed to another man or force marriage) the authority to renounce his/her Nigeria citizenship.
Giving out minors mostly the females ones is popular doing in African culture before civilization and modernization not only in Islam. Mostly this minor do not have any choice than to abide by the wish of their parent, i want to believe that subsection 4b of section 29 is an escape route for any minor that is forced into marriage.

I have come to realize that even our journalist refuse to be educated on this matter and this is more about citizenship than child right. We have to understand that this clause is only meant to renounce your citizenship and does not apply to voting or in any way prove that a minor has become of age as been insinuated by Medias and social networks. The minor in this case can ONLY renounce is citizenship but cannot vote, be send to normal jail, do any other thing a person above 18 years can do or be treated in any other way a person above 18 years can be treated.

Constitution Contradiction.

I believe the child act 2004 has made the subsection 4b of section 29 irrelevant and Yerima and co should be more worried about the child act of 2004 if truly they want to betroth their under age child out to another man and woman.
Nigeria need not worry about the removal or retaining subsection 4b of section 29 as the child act of 2004 has supersede and made it irrelevant anyway. Please read below prohibition of child marriage in the child act of 2004.

PART III
Protection of the Rights of a Child
21. Prohibition of child marriage
No person under the age of 18 years is capable of contracting a valid marriage, and accordingly a
marriage so contracted is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
22. Prohibition of child betrothal
(1) No parent, guardian or any other person shall betroth a child to any person.
(2) A betrothal in contravention of subsection (1) of this section is null and void.
23. Punishment for child marriage and betrothal
A person‐
(a) who marries a child; or
(b) to whom a child is betrothed; or
(c) who promotes the marriage of a child; or
(d) who betroths a child,
commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N500,000; or imprisonment for a term of five
years or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Its very obvious that Nigerians are just a replicate of their leader, just like any other Nigerian, Yerima jumped up to defend his culture and religion without even knowing that the clause has been made irrelevant by the abduction of child Act of 2004.

I think topic like this should make the front page to correct the misconception presently going on. The Senate never voted for UNDER-AGE marriage on that day. What they voted for was for the clause on renunciation of citizenship. That section 29(4b) only highlighted that any woman who is married is assumed to be of full age. Suprisingly enough even most senators who voted for and against never knew what the arguement was all about. These 35 senators should be commended for upholding this subsection to be retain. This subsection is not their creation. It has been there in the Constitution. Issues relating to under-age marriage has been highlighted in the CHILD ACT 2004 ( PART III Section 21 - 23). The media, activists, academic have failed once again. God bless us all.