NewsRescue- It is not unusual for Nigeria’s media, which consists of many highly unprofessional scripters, to present junk and trash for public consumption. NewsRescue was created among other things, for this very purpose. Cleaning a filthy and propagandist, dangerous media.

Here are the facts of the senate proceedings in question:
The topic voted on in the senate was not, “age of marriage,” as it has been made to appear.
The presentation by senator Yerima, was not, the age a woman should marry.
35 Nigerian senators who voted against the deletion of the segment, did not vote for age of marriage, rather they voted to uphold women’s unaleniable rights, even over men.
Senator Yerima did not introduce any thing new, rather he simply pointed out in upholding Nigeria’s constitution, that segments can not simply be deleted without proper vote and due process.
And finally, underlined: the segment to be deleted threatened to deprive women of their rights.
We proceed to review the section 29 of the constitution that was to be deleted without proper process:
Citizenship renunciation Rights
(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.
It is immediately seen from the above, that the section deals with conditions under which a Nigerian citizen is considered eligible to make a declaration to revoke his citizenship. “full age” to denounce/revoke/renounce Nigerian citizenship is used in reference to being allowed to make decisions, including this revocation. For both sexes, “full age” is 18 and above, however according to this section of the constitution, a woman is given greater and exclusive rights and authority, being regarded of “full age” to make decisions as serious as the revocation of her citizenship, once she is married.

When we think of what the Nigerian feminist forum created a petition to contest, it is very scary. They acted “hormonally,” without even taking a read of the constitutional segment in discussion. This constitutional permission, actually safe-guards women’s rights by allowing for instance, a married woman or girl, who feels cheated or otherwise deprived by Nigeria, the right to denounce her citizenship. This section is not related to and does not address what age a woman can marry.
NewsRescue-My Thoughts On ‘Child’ Marriage

It simply addresses what age a woman is eligible to make full fledgeling decisions, which of course can include divorce. If this section was deleted, then if for instance a 16 year old is married, she will not be considered “of age,” to challenge the marriage in court, or to revoke her citizenship if she wishes to seek asylum via the United Nations, or to any single citizenship nation. Such married young woman will have to wait and bear the pain till she is 18.

Senator Yerima had pointed out, that in Islam, once a woman is married, she is automatically of age to make all adult life decisions, including the right to divorce, this is as obtains in Nigeria’s constitution. Only the 35 senators listed below, voted to uphold these fundamental women’s rights of age unlimited choice, including the choice to denounce citizenship:

Sadly, it is evident that many of Nigeria’s senators are slightly more than barely literate and the Nigerian press is no better. See error and daft journalism in Punch, AllAfrica, Dailypost, Naij, SaharaReporters, to point out a few irresponsible editorials.

Quoting other sources:

2. CITIZENSHIP
The Section 26 of the 1999 Constitution defines who is a Nigerian citizen and how same may be acquired by naturalization and by registration. The Constitution makes no provision for the process by which non-Nigerian men married to Nigerian women and who are so desirous, may become Nigerian citizens. The silence here has continued to wreck untold hardship on the stability of many marriages.

Furthermore, section 29(4) (b) of the constitution provides for the renunciation of citizenship and thus allows an under aged woman to revoke her citizenship even when she has not attained the age of majority or the constitutional voting age. http://gtdn..com/2010/01/gender-gaps-in-nigeria-constitution.html

Ayo Turton, a US based lawyer explains the same:
Ayo Turton is a USA based lawyer
The clause that is really causing this unnecessary hullabaloo is Section 29 (4) (b). That clause has always been part of our laws, but the Senate moved to remove it as infringing on child’s right by making every married woman an adult. At the taking of the vote for the first time, they got two-third to remove it from the Constitution. But Yerima stood up and whipped up religious sentiment by galvanizing his Muslim brothers who ignorantly believed him into action. When the peace was threatened, David Mark, the Senate President capitulates and asked that the vote be taken again, at this point they were no longer able to garner two-third votes to remove the provision from the Constitution, so it remains.

Now to the legal issue: Section 29 (4) CLEARLY states: “for the purposes of subsection 1″ Section 29 subsection (1) CLEARLY states: “Any citizen of Nigeria of full age WHO WISHES TO RENOUNCE HIS NIGERIAN CITIZENSHIP (emphasis mine) shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for the renunciation”

This is called “narrow definition” Subsection (1) narrowly defined under what circumstances the definitions stated at clauses (a) and (b) would be applicable. Therefore clauses (a) and (b) of section 29 (4) are only relevant to “renunciation of citizenship” alone. What made this clearer and should leave no one in doubt is the fact that clause 29 (4) (a) re-emphasized that “full age” shall be 18, but if you are already married, for the purposes of renunciation of citizenship you shall be automatically qualified to do so even if you are not 18 yet. Because you are deemed of “full age” for renunciation reason based on the unambiguous definition given by subsection 29 (1) In any case S. 29 (4) (b) is referring to someone already married not about-to-marry.

As a matter of fact, if you ask me, the Constitution as it is, threatens Yerima status than support it.

Posted by Myne Whitman, Romance meets life
Yerima and The Nigerian Senate Did Not Change The Age of Marriage
…In conclusion, it is said that a large number of Nigerians don’t really know the law or their rights, and I think the lawmakers fall into this category. Those who pushed to delete section 29(4)(b) did it on the grounds that it contradicts 29(4)(a) and infringes the right of a child by allowing early marriage. I think otherwise. I believe section 29(4)(b) of the constitution deals with the age of a woman after the fact of marriage, and what rights she has at that time.

http://newsrescue.com/how-nigerias-gutter-media-misconstrued-the-yerima-underage-marriage-senate-proceeding/#axzz2ZbUrz0dG

Just like every decision we make in this country, this noise about age of a girl to marry was not even the subject of the constitution amendment.

It was about renunciation of citizenship by a female citizen.

There were 2 school of thoughts among the voting senators
1. Those that believed that ,at age of 18, irrespective of gender or marital status, a Nigerian is eligible to renounce his or her citizenship. Hence NO need for section 'b' of that section of the constitution

2. Those that believed that according to Islamic laws, any woman who is married irrespective of her age, can renounce her citizenship. Therefore the section'b' of that constitution should be kept


Nothing more than this.

Thank you so much for this clarification. God bless you.

Then if this is the case as OP wants us to believe. Why was it mainly northern islamist boko haram in the senate that voted with two southern i.di.ot.s that always sleep during sessions? Why did women in the senate not vote for it? Why did yerima still reply his critics that mohammed his mentor married aisha at age 6? Why did yerima also said that little gals of 10 now commit abortion, so they are matured. OP, you are disturbing yourself why yerima is about to pick his next 11year old bride.

Thanks for the article.The problem with us as a nation is the overabundance of ignorance.the controversial clause is only relevant to the issue of renunciation of citizenship and nothing else.

Even if there is ambiguity as to the interpretation of the said clause that should be a case for the supreme court.The word a "woman" is clear and if not that should be clarified.senator yerima and his cohorts tried to interprete it to be a "female".Even if we give leeway to yerima's view the phrase "deemed of age" is also ambigious as an underage married female might view it as an affirmation of her adulthood.and might want to vote or be voted for which contravenes our laws.

numerous dundies,have made a storm in teacup of this issue,some like fani kay have made political cal capital,other have used it disparage the religion of others,senators and lawyers have made fools of themselves.human rights enterpreneurs have used it to showcase their wares and guarantee the flow of grants. And the ignorance grows in leaps and bounds.

Could someone please arrest yerima for contravening our laws.BTW congrats to funke aboyade on her SANship

Thank you OP. I watched that debate and have been surpriced with the intepretation by both the sensational Nigerian press and the gulible youths. That section of the constitution is not about AGE of marriage. It is rather about age of consent.
As a health professional I know that world wide including the USA that for the purpose of consenting for treatment that 18 is the acceptable age. But there is an exception. An emancipated youth can give legally binding consent. Emancipated youth is defined as a person under the legal consenting age who is either married, a parent or has left home and is taking care of himself.
I am no Yerima fan but his point is that a married youth is an emancipated youth.
He did not try to fix or change the age of marriage.
We should always know the point before joining the sensational press to shout.

I am planning to disvigin my neighbours 5 year old daughter.Please can anyone help me with Sinator Yerima's phone number? I need some expert tips.

The article is well written but it funny u of all people have not or has failed to see the bigger picture as contained in the issue.
Tell that to the birds...saying a girl child is of age as soon as she's married is pospostrous. Period.

Who has the full list let us praise the ones against this

biafranqueen: Who has the full list let us praise the ones against this

Una No Just Get Sense! Go Senate Go Find The List! Did U Even Read What OP Posted!?

My problem here is...why d hell is sec 4(b) still in existence? As far i'm concerned, dat alone supports child marriage. A married woman is deemed to be of full age? Why shld she be 'deemed' to be of ful age if she's not already of full age? Datz lyk givin room for under aged women to be married but once they are married they are 'deemed' to be of full age. Major CRAP.

donguutti: Thanks for the article.The problem with us as a nation is the overabundance of ignorance.the controversial clause is only relevant to the issue of renunciation of citizenship and nothing else.

Even if there is ambiguity as to the interpretation of the said clause that should be a case for the supreme court.The word a "woman" is clear and if not that should be clarified.senator yerima and his cohorts tried to interprete it to be a "female".Even if we give leeway to yerima's view the phrase "deemed of age" is also ambigious as an underage married female might view it as an affirmation of her adulthood.and might want to vote or be voted for which contravenes our laws.

numerous dundies,have made a storm in teacup of this issue,some like fani kay have made political cal capital,other have used it disparage the religion of others,senators and lawyers have made fools of themselves.human rights enterpreneurs have used it to showcase their wares and guarantee the flow of grants. And the ignorance grows in leaps and bounds.

Could someone please arrest yerima for contravening our laws.BTW congrats to funke aboyade on her SANship

It is true that most people have commented out of ignorance and I agree that many people may have commented out of misinformation but your knowledge of the issue has several lacunae too so calling people "dundies",whatever that means only illuminates your ignorance too. The debate in the senate came to our attention because Yerima and his cotravellers invoked religion and suggested that somehow deleting the clause would injure their rights as muslims
. They want that ambiguity embedded in our constitution and also for the records to show that that ambiguity exists because of religious reasons. That is a political dimension. The fact is that the outcome of the vote is that the status quo remains (as it has been since 1999) nothing has changed. The best way to tackle it is in court on tthe grounds of
discrimination against men which is inconsistent with equality provisons elsewhere in the same constitution.Men who are under 18 and married appear not to be "deemed" of age for the purpose of renouncing citizeship and this is a matter for judicial review though the fact that we are unable to achieve the numbers to expunge it through the legislature cannot be ignored. My view is there is nothing in that section of the constitution precluding the enactment of laws for marriage and such laws may include age of marriage and do not require a 2/3 majority. In fact from a political view point that is what the majority in the senate should do and hopefully get the President's consent thus shifting the onus for litigation to the naysayers.