No where in the SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL That I
proposed; no where in the bill passed by Senate
was it stated that you can defile an 11 years old.
No where in the bill passed by the Senate was
the age “11 years” mentioned.
Here is what was passed in relation to your area
of pre-occupation which is defilement clause 6
(2): “A person who commits an offence of
defilement shall upon conviction be sentenced
to imprisonment for life”.
You claimed that the bill re-defined “female
adulthood as marital status”. Where in the bill
proposed by me and where in the bill passed by
Senate did you see adulthood linked to marital
status? The extreme distortion of the spirit,
intent and even content of this bill leads me to
think that you may be talking about an all-
together different piece of legislation.

Mogidi:


Soyinka should have read the bill before commenting, at 80yrs plus, I hope the great playwright is not waning.

But Falana said the illegal removal of 18 years from the original bill and its replacement with 11 years was inconsistent with the provisions of section 29(4)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution.

The minimum age of 18 years in the original Bill was in line with the provisions of the Child’s Rights Act, 2003 and the Child’s Rights Convention of the United Nations which has been ratified by Nigeria. The Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters for further legislative work. It was that Committee that illegally removed the age of 18 years and replaced it with 11 years.

“The inserted clause is inconsistent with section 29(4)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution which provides that ‘full age’ means the age of 18 years and above.

“Having passed the Bill the Senate cannot plead non est factum in the circumstance. It has to bear full responsibility for the legislative negligence.

“But since the obnoxious provision was illegally inserted by the Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters without approval, the Senate ought to reverse itself and amend the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Bill, 2015. Our Law firm has made a request to that effect,” the statement said.

TheOtherview:


How do you know he did not read the bill, Mr Attention Seeker? Have you taken the time to review it yourself?

No where in the SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL That I
proposed; no where in the bill passed by Senate
was it stated that you can defile an 11 years old.
No where in the bill passed by the Senate was
the age “11 years” mentioned.

Mogidi:


Why should I believe an article in Punch newspaper made up of rhetoric rather than the woman who sponsored the bill?
Here is what she said:

Mekus68:
That's my senator.
I love this Bill.
Haters of this Bill have bad intentions against little kids and young girls. They want to be abusing our future wives wih impunity, leaving chaff for us for marriage. E no go work for them.

Nigeria’s proposed sexual offences law obnoxious – Falana

...The Sexual Offences Bill, 2015, was among the 46 bills passed by the 7th Senate in a last minute flurry of activities last week.

In his letter, Mr. Falana said that the Bill had not been forwarded to the president for his assent as it had not been passed by the House of Representatives.

“However, it would be recalled that Senator Chris Anyanwu who sponsored the Sexual Offences Bill had justified the urgent need to pass it to save our girls and women from sexual exploitation and molestation,” said Mr. Falana.

[b]“When the Bill was unanimously passed for a second reading by the Senate on November 21, 2013, it sought to prescribe a penalty of life imprisonment for the offence of defilement of children less than 18 years of age.

“It also provided for compulsory documentation, supervision of sexual offenders and medical treatment for rape victims while it strengthened the weak protection offered victims and witnesses in trials for sexual offences.”

The minimum age of 18 years stated in the original Bill was in line with the provisions of the Child’s Rights Act, 2003, according to Mr. Soyinka, and the Child’s Rights Convention of the United Nations which had been ratified by Nigeria.

The Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters for further legislative work.

It was that Committee that illegally removed the age of 18 years and replaced it with 11 years, said Mr. Falana.

“The inserted clause is inconsistent with Section 29(4)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution which provides that ‘full age’ means the age of 18 years and above.”[/b]

BackDatAssUp:
my senile father should crawl into a hole and just die.

My cursed smelling mother has caused enough confusion already with her rotten p.u.ssy.

BackDatAssUp:
Wole Soyinka should crawl into a hole and just die.

This silly mad man has caused enough confusion already.

TheOtherview:


Dimwit-in-chief finally makes an appearance.

What's new? After all, this is what now passes for political commentary on Seun's NL.

One of Jonathan's lasting legacies...

BackDatAssUp:


Wole Soyinka is an old fool who sees nothing good in others and has too much of a high opinion of himself.

Chris tactfully put the old fool in his place

6.-(1) A person Who commits an act which causes penetration with a child aged Sexual activity with a child eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2) A person who engages in sexual activity with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Thanks to a legal loophole, the average age of marriage for girls in Kebbi State, northern Nigeria, is 11 years old. The law is often manipulated and exploited for perverse ends, but it's rare that one forgotten detail in legislation can affect an entire mass of people quite so profoundly.

Section 29 of the Nigerian constitution allows any Nigerian of full age (18 or above) to renounce his or her citizenship. However, a subsection of that law adds that women can only be deemed of full age when they get married—a convenient loophole that's become easy to exploit by any adult man in the mood to snatch himself up a child bride.

TheOtherview:


I am afraid that even with my limited understanding, it is clear that Senator Anyanwu's mastery of the English language is highly suspect.
This was a point I tried to impart on a different thread...
============================================================
Naptu Sir, you know that I have never found any of your posts disagreeable up till this point.
But I beg to disagree on this one.

Let me explain why...




^^^No wiggle room - the language is clear and unambiguous



^^^ By inserting the word "liable", wiggle room was provided here

Now I am no legal bird but I think changing shall to liable leaves clause 2 open to interpretation

"Liable to" is less definitive than "Shall" - that's my point.

What stopped the Senate from putting a clear and unambiguous stake in the ground eh?

BackDatAssUp:




In legal parlance, especially when dealing with criminal or penal legislation, the term "liable" is used because the final interpretation, judgement and conviction rests on proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused was found guilty.

"Liable" in this instance is thus the recommended sentence or punishment.

Remember all accused remain innocent until proven guilty.

I Rest my case

Maxymilliano:
A brilliant and straight forward piece by the Senator.


The bitter truth here is that one need to have all facts before taking position on issues, and not the usual herded mentality of following the crowd, particularly the crowd on social media ...

TheOtherview:


Why not rebut Falana's argument with your own elevated thoughts - assuming you have any?

TheOtherview:


I am afraid that even with my limited understanding (I am more a numbers person), it is clear that Senator Anyanwu's mastery of the English language is highly suspect.
This was a point I tried to impart on a different thread...
============================================================
Naptu Sir, you know that I have never found any of your posts disagreeable up till this point.
But I beg to disagree on this one.

Let me explain why...



^^^No wiggle room - the language is clear and unambiguous



^^^ By inserting the word "liable", wiggle room was provided here

Now I am no legal bird but I think changing shall to liable leaves clause 2 open to interpretation

"Liable to" is less definitive than "Shall" - that's my point.

What stopped the Senate from putting a clear and unambiguous stake in the ground eh?

Furthermore, why was threshold even lowered in a graduated form?

Maxymilliano:



I'm not under any obligation to rebut any arguements or whatsoever from Falana, the post is a rejoinder by Senator Chris Anyawu to Wole Soyinka's article.

omazus:
Mr. Man, must you defend everything. In one swoop you suspect Senator Anyanwu's mastery of English but in another you profess your ignorance of legal language. What if Anyanwu's language equates to the legal language/meaning you do not understand. Please Soyinka goofed. He is a highly respected scholar, but we cannot doubt that old age is dealing him some blows. Instead f Soyinka now being the conscience of the nation, he abdicates that role to the mob. Anyanwu is right that Soyinka should have gone through the bill and not rely on third person's view. Please and please, Soyinka is one Nigerian HERO I do not want to encounter the legendary fall of all heroes of the western world as shown in their literature. May Soyinks remain great. And may he not be so much in a haste to join the bandwagon. I beg of you my model.

Mogidi:


Ogidi should have read the bill before commenting, at 80yrs plus, I hope moses is not waning.

BackDatAssUp:



My father is an old fool who sees nothing good in others and has too much of a high opinion of himself.

Chris tactfully put the old fool in his place

TheOtherview:


Now tell what other interpretation can be ascribed to the defilement of teenagers? Isn't this precisely the kind of latitude the Yerimas of the world seek?