Senate did not vote on marriage age (RIGHT
OF REPLY)
on July 29, 2013 at 6:08 am in Viewpoint
Senator ENYI ABARIBE is Chairman, Senate
Committe on Information, Media and Public Affairs.
THE Senate last week voted on the report of its
Constitution Review Committee and at the end of it
all, it once again achieved a milestone in altering the
1999 Constitution to bring the document in line with
the general aspirations of the Nigerian people.
However, while the Senate appreciates and welcomes
the healthy debate that ensued within the public on
some aspects of the sections that were voted on,
which it sees as a veritable feedback that signals the
public acceptance and overwhelming followership of
the happenings in the hallowed chambers, it is
nonetheless bothered by negative commentaries
which suggest a deliberate misinformation and
distortion of what actually transpired on the floor
when the distinguished senators voted on the each
section of the report by its constitution amendment
committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did the
senators vote, neither did they ever deliberate on any
clause that has to do with marriage age. They also
did not vote to introduce any new law on underage
marriage. The senators only voted to amend some
clauses in the articles that were already in the
Constitution.
It is pertinent for the public to know that the section
up for amendment had to do with persons qualified
to renounce Nigerian citizenship.
The 1999 Constitution as amended in Section 29
(which has suddenly become a hot issue for both
informed and uninformed interpretation in the press
and social media), states in section 1 S29(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”.
S29(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 prevailing view of the committee before the
initial vote was that Section 29(4)(a) was gender
neutral but with section 29(4)(b) specifically
mentioning “woman” , it now looked discriminatory
and as such is in conflict with section 42 of the
Constitution which prohibits discrimination of any
form. The committee thus sought for it to be
expunged from the Constitution.
Senators, therefore, voted earlier to expunge that
sub-section and it scaled through by 75 votes. Note
that under the Constitution, to amend any clause you
will need 2/3 of the members of the Senate which
translates to 73 votes.
However, the revisiting of the voting on that section
was to take care of objections raised by
Distinguished Senator Ahmad Sani Yerima, among
others. He pointed out that removing the clause
29(4)(b) contradicts section 61 of the second
schedule of the Constitution which restricts the
National Assembly from considering matters relating
to Islamic and Customary law.
Revisiting the section was pure and simple a
pragmatic approach. It had to be so, considering that
the Senate as the representative of the people
represents all interests and all shades of opinion.
Therefore, a fresh vote was called and even though
those who wanted that section expunged were more
in number, they failed to muster the needed votes to
get it through. What it meant was that majority of
senators voted to remove it but they were short of
the 2/3 majority or (73) required to alter an article of
the Constitution.
Had voting in constitutional amendment not been
based on the mandatory two-third or (73) votes of
senators at the seating, perhaps the issue would
have been rested by now, but be that as it may the
outcome of the voting remains the position of the
Senate. S29(4)(b) still remains part of the
Constitution.
What is important is for the issue to be put in its
proper perspective.
This clarification has become necessary because of
the willful and deliberate act to distort and misinform
the general public on what was neither discussed nor
contemplated by the distinguished senators.
At no time was marriage as a section of the
Constitution discussed or voted for. The National
Assembly in 2003 had passed “The Child Rights Act”
which specifically took care of the fears being
expressed in a cross section of the media. The Act
clearly states in section 21: “No person under the
age of 18 years is capable of contracting a valid
marriage, and accordingly, any marriage so
contracted is null and void and of no effect
whatsoever”.
22. 1. “No parent, guardian or any other person shall
betroth a child to any person”
2. A betrothal in contravection of subsection (1) of
this section is null and void.
Therefore, under the Childs Right Act the lawful age
of marriage is 18years.
The Constitution does not provide for many rules of
human engagement such as marriage and only
makes provision for specialised laws to take care of
such matters. That is why the National Assembly now
made a specialised legislation to address the matter
of lawful age for marriage as seen above.
In fact, section 23 of the Childs Right Act provides
stiff penalties:
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 (Five
Hundred Thousand Naira) or imprisonment for a term
of five years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
It was the Senate of this Federal Republic that made
this law which is still operative in some states. The
snag in any case is that the Child Right Act does not
automatically apply across the country. It has to be
domesticated on state by state basis by the
respective Houses of Assembly. Up to date 12 states
are yet to domesticate or adopt the law. It is with
respect to those states that the advocacy on age of
marriage should be directed since it was the National
Assembly that passed the law in the first place.
The essence of this further clarification is to remind
all that the Senate in its wisdom passed that law,
which has become operative in most states with the
exception of the remaining 12.
The Senate has done its best with utmost concern for
national interest and its leadership has ably
navigated its affairs with high level of integrity,
sense of responsibility and fairness to all Nigerians.
It would have made a whole lot of sense had the
various commentators displayed the capacity to
reason and do due diligence to the issue before
rushing to conclude that the Senate did what was not
even before it.
Senator ENYI ABARIBE is Chairman, Senate
Committe on Information, Media and Public Affairs.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/07/senate-did-not-vote-on-marriage-age-right-of-reply/
MODS FP o, its funny how pple meant to be educated can be fool by few pple who twist facts, all over social media pics of yerima nd children (am not a fan of yerima o) nd all kinds of silly ish. Let's learn to reason before joining a bandwagon of crap

Hmmmm