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”...............


http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/07/senate-did-not-vote-on-marriage-age-right-of-reply/

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/