Donaldoni:
I was about to let you off the hook until I came across the sexual offences bill of 2015. You can google it. It caused serious furore at the time it was passed.

This is where the basis of our age of consent being 11 comes from.

It supersedes all the other laws. And that is what ageofconsent.net and others are relying and why pressure groups are calling for our age of consent to be raised.

Thankfully the reps are trying to repeal it.

https://punchng.com/reps-defines-minor-in-new-sexual-offences-bill/

For now, it is what is it. Statutory rape is rape of anybody under 11.

According to the article that you linked...
What Rep Peller was trying to do is to coalesce all the subsections into one section.

In other words, each subsection provides for the same life sentence for different age groups...
And he was seeking to clear any perceived ambiguity by just listing the top age provided (18 years).

See this article for clarity: https://dubawa.org/nigerias-sexual-offences-bill-stipulates-18-years-not-11-years-age-consent/
>

9jaRealist:


According to the article that you linked...
What Rep Peller was trying to do is to coalesce all the subsections into one section.

In other words, each subsection provides for the same life sentence for different age groups...
And he was seeking to clear any perceived ambiguity by just listing the top age provided (18 years).

See this article for clarity: https://dubawa.org/nigerias-sexual-offences-bill-stipulates-18-years-not-11-years-age-consent/
>

But 11 was also provided. Until, the coalescion is done, 11 stands.

If it were stated authoritatively stated as 18 there would have been no need for amendment.

Anybody can intepret the bill as they wish but those who are smart (google, ageofconsent. net. protesting activists and co) know what it really is.

And why were you quoting outdated laws Ab initio?

Donaldoni:
But 11 was also provided. Until, the coalescion is done, 11 stands.

If it were stated authoritatively stated as 18 there would have been no need for amendment.

Anybody can intepret the bill as they wish but those who are smart (google, ageofconsent. net. protesting activists and co) know what it really is.

And why were you quoting outdated laws Ab initio?

No, it doesn’t “stand” in the way you are using the term....

It only “stands” in the manner that 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 “stands” as NOT contrary to 18...
In other words, anyone UNDER 18 (including but not limited to 11) are regarded as BELOW the age of consent.
>

9jaRealist:


No, it doesn’t “stand” in the way you are using the term....

It only “stands” in the manner that 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 “stands” as NOT contrary to 18...
In other words, anyone UNDER 18 (including but not limited to 11) are regarded as BELOW the age of consent.
>

Nope. Otherwise there would have been no need for an amendment.

Since 11 was stated and no less, then it means 11 is the least age of consent.
This is why the internet considers this as our age of consent.

Donaldoni:
Nope. Otherwise there would have been no need for an amendment.

Since 11 was stated and no less, then it means 11 is the least age of consent.
This is why the internet considers this as our age of consent.

Again, you are incorrect...

11 years was NOT “stated and no less” (Section 7(2))....
Rather, Section 7(3) states 15 years, and Section 7(4) states 18 years

What the amendment seeks is merely to coalesce these 3 subsections into one...
In other words, by retaining only 18 years, it necessarily includes both 11 and 15 years.

Granted it seems a poorly-drafted bill...
But nonetheless it CLEARLY stipulates life imprisonment for defiling anyone under 18 years!
>

Donaldoni:
Nope. Otherwise there would have been no need for an amendment.

Since 11 was stated and no less, then it means 11 is the least age of consent.
This is why the internet considers this as our age of consent.

Again, you are incorrect...

11 years was NOT “stated and no less” (Section 7(2))....
Rather, Section 7(3) states 15 years, and Section 7(4) states 18 years

What the amendment seeks is merely to coalesce these 3 subsections into one...
In other words, by retaining only 18 years, it necessarily includes both 11 and 15 years.

It is to address a drafting dissonance, and not a substantive issue...
For though it’s poorly-drafted, it nonetheless CLEARLY stipulates life imprisonment for defiling anyone under 18 years!
>

9jaRealist:


Again, you are incorrect...

11 years was NOT “stated and no less” (Section 7(2))....
Rather, Section 7(3) states 15 years, and Section 7(4) states 18 years

What the amendment seeks is merely to coalesce these 3 subsections into one...
In other words, by retaining only 18 years, it necessarily includes both 11 and 15 years.

It is to address a drafting dissonance, and not a substantive issue...
For though it’s poorly-drafted, it nonetheless CLEARLY stipulates life imprisonment for defiling anyone under 18 years!
>

Those who drafted the bill knew what they were doing...

Section 7 (2) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life

Section 7 (3) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life

Section 7 (4) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years old is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

If you observe clearly there is a difference between sections 7 (2) and the remaining 2 sections.

Also, nothing is said of a child between 11 and 12, and between 15 and 16 years of age... That's a lacuna

Did you also see that consent can be granted thereby making the defilement null and void

So an amendment is needed to state clearly that having sex with a girl under 18 is guilty of statutory rape whether there is consent or not.

Come on, google.com, ageofconsent.net and other activists agitating for the age of consent to be raised are no fools...

Donaldoni:
Those who drafted the bill knew what they were doing...

Section 7 (2) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life

Section 7 (3) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life

Section 7 (4) says: A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years old is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

If you observe clearly there is a difference between sections 7 (2) and the remaining 2 sections.

Also, nothing is said of a child between 11 and 12, and between 15 and 16 years of age... That's a lacuna

Did you also see that consent can be granted thereby making the defilement null and void

So an amendment is needed to state clearly that having sex with a girl under 18 is guilty of statutory rape whether there is consent or not.

Come on, google.com, ageofconsent.net and other activists agitating for the age of consent to be raised are no fools...

It’s NOT a lacuna...
Because in law, there’s nothing like in-between ages.

Accordingly, in the eyes of the law, you are 11 until you become 12...
Eg, if the law prevents people 17 years and less from drinking, you do not start drinking until you are 18.

Yet again, please desist with the ageofconsent.net....
There’s something called ‘parachute analysts’ and that site is obviously one of those.

When we have MULTIPLE sources of VERIFIABLE public law...
You insist on overriding them with some website whose authors could be some ignoramuses stuck in a basement.
>

9jaRealist:


It’s NOT a lacuna...
Because in law, there’s nothing like in-between ages.

Accordingly, in the eyes of the law, you are 11 until you become 12...
Eg, if the law prevents people 17 years and less from drinking, you do not start drinking until you are 18.

Yet again, please desist with the ageofconsent.net....
There’s something called ‘parachute analysts’ and this is obviously one of those.

When we have MULTIPLE sources of VERIFIABLE public law...
You insist on overriding them with some website whose authors could be some ignoramuses stuck in a basement.
>

Bro, why are our reps calling for an amendment if the bill had specifically stated 18 as the age of consent

Why are activists crying for the age of consent to be raised from 11 to 18

Are they dullards

Come on, they have studied the law and seen all the lacunae.

What is defilement according to Nigerian law

Donaldoni:
Bro, why are our reps calling for an amendment if the bill had specifically stated 18 as the age of consent

Why are activists crying for the age of consent to be raised from 11 to 18

Are they dullards

Come on, they have studied the law and seen all the lacunae.

What is defilement according to Nigerian law

You keep repeating that....
But that’s NOT what the story you posted says.

Meanwhile, you keep using perjorative terms like ‘dullards’...
When in reality even smart folks can be genuinely mistaken.

PS: ‘Defilement’ is defined in Section 7(1) of the law.
>

Donaldoni:
Bro, why are our reps calling for an amendment if the bill had specifically stated 18 as the age of consent

Why are activists crying for the age of consent to be raised from 11 to 18

Are they dullards

Come on, they have studied the law and seen all the lacunae.

What is defilement according to Nigerian law

To be specific (as excerpted from the news story you posted), the Explanatory Note to the amendment reads:

“This bill seeks to amend sections 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and to delete SUPERFLUOUS provisions which may be misleading....” (emphasis added).

18 years or less is already provided in the Act, and NOT a new provision(s) to be added....
The amendment merely seeks to DELETE ‘superfluous’ (as in unnecessary) language that may mislead some.
>

9jaRealist:


To be specific (as excerpted from the news story you posted), the Explanatory Note to the amendment reads:

“This bill seeks to amend sections 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Sexual Offences Act and to delete SUPERFLUOUS provisions which may be misleading....” (emphasis added).

18 years or less is already provided in the Act, and NOT a new provision(s) to be added....
The amendment merely seeks to DELETE ‘superfluous’ (as in unnecessary) language that may mislead some.
>

The bill, which passed the first reading on July 24, 2019, is titled, ‘A Bill for an Act to Amend the Sexual Offence Act 2015 and for Other Related Matters, 2019.’

If the amendment bill is passed by the House as proposed, and concurred with by the Senate, anybody younger than 18 would be categorised as a minor under the law regardless of religious, marital and other considerations.

Until the SUPERFLUOUS provisions are deleted, 11 remains the age of consent...

Avalancheman:
Until the SUPERFLUOUS provisions are deleted, 11 remains the age of consent...

No, it does NOT...
Because it is NOT the only age of consent.

11 years, 15 years and 18 years or less are provided in the SAME law...
Thus, it’s akin to saying “18 remains the law of consent” (which is even more correct, as 18 or less includes 11).

Nevertheless, this discussion is substantively IRRELEVANT to the case here...
Because Lagos State law under which dude will be charged is UNAMBIGUOUS!
>

It seems some people don't want Donaldoni to air his views. Anti spam BOT has been banning him anyhow and unfairly. The reason for his ban is not even being stated.

This is so unfair.

"Defilement of Under-aged Girls: What is the Verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria?

Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC
The above notable and profound pronouncement forms part of the ipsissima verba of my lord, the Hon. Justice Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when he delivered the leading Judgment on Friday, 30th January, 2015 in the case of BONIFACE ADONIKE v. THE STATE (2015) 7 N.W.L.R (pt 1458) 237 at 266 paragraphs B-D. The case of Boniface Adonike (Supra) once more brings to the fore the duty on sentencing authorities to show in the application of the law that society abhors cases of defilement of young girls. The law on defilement of under-aged girls in Nigeria is provided in Section 218 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 42, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. The section provides that “any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without whipping”. Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without whipping. A prosecution for either of the offences defined above in this section must be begun within two months after the offence is committed. A person cannot be convicted of either of the offences defined in this section upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness."

@9jarealist

If you study the sexual offences bill of 2015 and criminal code act of 2014, you will discover they are similar only that the former covers girls from 11 to 18 while the latter covers girls from 13 to 16.

Hence, the need for the House of Reps to amend the sexual offences bill of 2015 to authoritatively and clearly raise the age of cons**t from 11 to 18.