naptu2: Some have said that the ambiguity in section 4b could lead to the legalisation of marriages of people under the age of 18. However, others argue that it won't because, according to the Child Rights Act, it is illegal to marry anyone below the age of 18. The marriage would be illegal at the time it is being contracted, while section 4b deals with a woman that is already married. But note that the Child Rights Act has only been domesticated in 24 states.

Yoshi-Master:


So in essence what you are saying is that all states need to adopt the Child Rights Act.

So once that is adopted, the age associated with subsection 4b should automatically become 18 years right?

Any idea of the hold up in all states adopting this Child Rights Act?

stillwater: There's no reason for the (b) part of the clause to be included because it is open to all assumptions and criminal activities by certain men. This is the reason why 33 out of the 35 are Northerners.

naptu2: The 1979 constitution did not contain provisions for renunciation of citizenship. During constitutional review debates in 1979 Aminu Kano (the leader of the PRP) felt that the age of 18 years used in subsection 4a was an arbitrary western concept of maturity. The legislators in 1979 at the time agreed with the PRP argument and subsection 4b was included.

That section has been in the constitution since then. It reads thus (I've also included 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.

(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 constitution is currently being amended and rights groups have called for the deletion of subsection 4b.

You need 2/3rds majority of votes in the senate, house of representatives and 2/3rds of all the state houses of assembly in order to amend the constitution.

2/3rds of the senators present at that time = 73 votes. The senate voted and more than 73 senators voted that 4b should be deleted. The senate moved on to other clauses.

A while later, Senator Yerima raised a point of order that subsection 4b cannot be deleted because deleting it is against islamic law. He stated that in islam, a woman is deemed to be of full age once she has gotten married. The Senate President, David Mark, reminded Yerima that the Senate has a tradition that it does not re-visit a clause once it has been voted on, but Senator Yerima continued to protest.

Eventually the Senate President agreed to hold a second vote. This time 60 senators voted that the subsection should be removed, while 35 voted that it should not be removed. They couldn't get 2/3rds majority.

Section 4b stands.


I wonder why Mark agreed to hold a second vote.


Some have said that the ambiguity in section 4b could lead to the legalisation of marriages of people under the age of 18. However, others argue that it won't because, according to the Child Rights Act, it is illegal to marry anyone below the age of 18. The marriage would be illegal at the time it is being contracted, while section 4b deals with a woman that is already married. But note that the Child Rights Act has only been domesticated in 24 states.

the constitution is currently being amended and rights groups have called for the deletion of subsection 4b.

Freewilly: Very typical of someone from that part of Nigeria.

manny4life: This man is just A SORE LOSER and a FREAKING HYPOCRITE, and did I mention a LIAR?

How about this?



Why is this man contradicting himself?

ola_pluto: Well understood Senator. We know those who jump on bandwagon are not the intelligent ones. That Section 29 NEVER mentioned or endorsed child marriage. As long as it serves some emergency activists purpose, they conveniently twisted the whole thing. Stella Damascus even made a video highlighting her misinformation. Many cosmetic activists on twitter, facebook and even here on nairaland needed to get busy, so they picked on Yerima. When they all settle down to digest the bill, I hope the reasonable ones among them will retract and apologize.

Senator Ayo: DISTINGUISHED SENATOR Dr. AYO AKINYELURE,FCA representing Ondo Central at the upper Chamber of the National Assembly, hereby wish to make the following clarifications on the above subject- matter to correct the wrong allegations of VOTING INFAVOUR OF 'UNDER AGE MARRIAGE' as widely reported in the PUNCH NEWSPAPER of July, 20th 2013 on Pages 9-11. Which has now been subjected to various interpretations.

What the Senate considered for determination under the review of Nigerian Constitution was RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION.

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SENATE FOR DETERMINATION WAS WHETHER A CLAUSE WHICH PROVIDES THAT "a married woman is deemed to be of full age to renounce her CITIZENSHIP OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SHOULD BE RETAINED OR BE DELETED?

Section 29(1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that "Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the RENUNCIATION"

The question before the SENATE FOR WHICH I VOTED I INFAVOUR WAS THAT A MARRIED WOMAN IS DEEMED TO BE OF FULL AGE TO RENOUNCE HER NIGERIAN CITIZENSHIP.

THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM VOTING IN FAVOUR OF 'UNDERAGE MARRIAGE' as now widely reported in the Media to blackmail Senators of FRN that believed in peaceful co-existence of Nigeria as a Nation.

I wish to EMPHATICALLY MAINTAINED THAT, I NEVER VOTED INFAVOUR OF UNDERAGE MARRIAGE AS WRONGLY REPORTED IN THE MEDIA. WHAT I VOTED FOR WAS THAT " a married woman is deemed to be of full age to renounced her citizenship of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA as entrenched in the CONSTITUTION SINCE 1999.

This implied that RENUNCIATION OF NIGERIAN CITIZENSHIP IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM AGE OF MARRIAGE OF NIGERIAN CITIZENS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, I SUBMITTED THIS CLARIFICATIONS TO THE WHOLE NIGERIA AND THE WORLD AT LARGE, THAT MY PEOPLE IN ONDO CENTRAL AND GOVERNMENT OF ONDO STATE DID NOT SUPPORT UNDER AGE MARRIAGE IN ALL RAMIFICATIONS.

Kamsy10:


What have you understood,Mr intelligent. You and Yerima are so disgusting. How do you feel sleeping with a 13 year old girl when you are 64.
Gush!!!spits on you and Yerima and walks away from the thread.
Don't think I'll reply on this your disgusting post. This topic brings to mind the agony all the trauma old disgusting men are putting underdeveloped girls through. Their organs are not even fully developed.gushh!!!! spits again

ola_pluto: Well understood Senator. We know those who jump on bandwagon are not the intelligent ones. That Section 29 NEVER mentioned or endorsed child marriage. As long as it serves some emergency activists purpose, they conveniently twisted the whole thing. Stella Damascus even made a video highlighting her misinformation. Many cosmetic activists on twitter, facebook and even here on nairaland needed to get busy, so they picked on Yerima. When they all settle down to digest the bill, I hope the reasonable ones among them will retract and apologize.

dayokanu:

[img]http://1.bp..com/-wO2jNBnZ4PM/Uezu9I42iKI/AAAAAAAAADk/5baY2AyJS_E/s1600/ayo+akinselure.jpg[/img]

http://myondostate.com/w3/update-ondo-senator-akinyelure-states-his-case-in-reaction-to-pedophile-vote/
http://www.childnotbride.com/2013/07/press-release-by-senator-ayo-akinyelure.html

phildon: That is Nigeria and her gullible youths for you. I think the Senator's explanation is just too clear. If you have anything against Senator Yerima, I think it's entirely a different issue.

delors:
Bros, noooooooooooo! I restrained from this very strong temptation to call you a name. I am a changed individual ...But then, these guys knew what thy were doing. truth is that:
1. they never knew that the names of these guys WHO voted would be published
2. They knew the implication of voting against that particular clause of the section....a lawyer could interpret that in many ways. We were lucky to have been informed on the implication of such a move
3. They never knew that Nigerians would understand the implication of wiping that clause out of the constitution.
Wake up bro and get a good understanding of the law. If they say, "As from 6pm, children can no longer play outside their homes" a good lawyer could interpret this to be so many things like 1. curfew after 6pm 2. who is a child? What is the age bracket of a child? 11? 12? 13? 17? If a 30yr old man still has the brain of a 10yr old, then he is a child...the law is a criminally-minded document written by criminals...take a cue from Zimmerman's Self-Defense and Stand Your Ground clauses in the US constitution and how he won the Trayvon's case with these...we are enlightened bro. We know what's up

ola_pluto:
I dont mind you calling me names, it doesnt really bother me. Please provide your interpretation of how section 29 b (4) links with supporting child bride. If you can do that, then we can have an intellectual convo.
You might want to read this review before coming back: http://telegraphng.com/2013/07/misguided-campaign-on-child-brides-12/

article: It is a struggle to see how, from a literal reading of s.29(4)(b) CFRN, it can be interpreted that the ability of a married female child to renounce her citizenship amounts to an endorsement of child marriage. Therefore, this campaign should be driven by a proper legal base e.g. why the 2003 Child Rights Act is not receiving any attention, or a proposal for the restriction of religious freedom, rather than misconstruing s.29(4)(b).
As can be deciphered from the preceding paragraphs, deleting s.29(4)(b) would not make child marriage unlawful.

naptu2:

1) There were already many underage wives when Aminu Kano made the proposal in 1979 and there was no Child Rights Act. Also note that the subsection does not legalise the act of marrying a child. It only addresses the issue of girls that are already married.

2) Read this article. It has a list of states that have passed the Child Rights Act and those that have not. It also speculates the reasons why it has not been passed in some states.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/06/nigerian-child-and-the-child-rights-act/

superior1: Senator sir, I think you need a psychiatry evaluation urgently.

You mean there is nothing wrong in declaring a married 13 year old baby wise enough to renounce her citizenship?? Ode!!!