BackDatAssUp:


Ignoramus, before a bill is passed it must go through at least 3 readings before being subject to an oral vote.

Where were your Senators during the reading session?

Where was Remi Tinubu?

Hahahaha. You know nothing about how a bill becomes a law. Committee, one of the stages a bill passes could be either of the whole house or a standing one. Do you know which it's before mentioning Remi Tinubu?

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?

"Shall" comes before "liable". In law, shall is mandatorily applicable in nature.

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

This silly mad man has caused enough confusion already.

R u God?
U will die first
Idiot

Sheggy13:

It's all over the web that Aisha was born in 1971 and got married to Buhari in 1989, meaning she was 18 then and she's 44 now..why do you have to tell an obvious lie just to make a point? How can someone who married at the age of 12 in 1989 be 40 years old in 2015. FYI, Buhari divorced his first wife in 1988 and married Aisha a year after.

Buhari has a lot in comparison to Mohammed and I don't mean his first name and that of his wife.

[img]http://shariaunveiled.files./2014/07/muhammad-and-aisha-1-revised.jpg?w=627[/img]

Like Mohammed and Aisha

Sheggy13:

It's all over the web that Aisha was born in 1971 and got married to Buhari in 1989, meaning she was 18 then and she's 44 now..why do you have to tell an obvious lie just to make a point? How can someone who married at the age of 12 in 1989 be 40 years old in 2015. FYI, Buhari divorced his first wife in 1988 and married Aisha a year after.

Ignore that animal.

He was here defending SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL by Chris Anyanwu , and when the heat was too much for him he turn it to Tribal rants.

They cannot make a bill about improving maintenance culture, solar energy or a bill that will make sure nigeria becomes an exporter of refined petroleum products etc

They cannot make a bill to ensure graduates learn a trade and undergo. Compulsory entrepreneurship or tutelage

Na how to marry 12 yrs girl is there problem.

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

Wole soyinka is an old fool who sees nothing good in others! If wole soyinka is a fool then what are you. Its funny how social media has given lots of people like you and a lot of ethnic bigots on this forum the chance to spill out the hatred in your silly selves. Ur name sef is a pointer to ur intelluctual bankrupness and ineptitude.

emmatok:


Ignore that animal.

He was here defending SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL by Chris Anyanwu , and when the heat was too much for him he turn it to Tribal rants.

Buhari has been farking Aisha since 1987 when she was just 12.

Fact!

the bill appears to stipulate those incidents will not be considered crimes if the victims are older than 11; with Mr. Falana saying those age limits were inserted wrongly into the original bill. “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. “Finally, if the Bill is eventually passed into law with its obnoxious provisions we shall not hesitate to pray the Federal High Court to strike it down in view of Article 18(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which has imposed a duty on the Government of Nigeria to ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the
child, as stipulated in international declarations and conventions.” Mr. Soyinka had, on Friday, urged President Muhammadu Buhari to withhold his assent to the bill (which is also known as the anti-rape bill) passed by the last National Assembly. According to Mr. Soyinka, a nation should not be founded on the sexual exploitation of the fragile and innocent. “President Buhari – and here I make my first imposition on his presidency – should never place his assent on such a nefarious distraction,” Mr. Soyinka had said. “Its implications doom the victim to afflictions that churn the stomach even to think of the human toll. Perhaps those legislators think that vaginal fistula is something thought up by arm-chair critics with nothing better to occupy their minds. No matter, let those who profess a genuine concern declare their stand on this.” 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. “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.”

BackDatAssUp:


But the Yoruba mob won't see this rather they looked for the Igbo to blame.

By the way, the SW has 18 Senators in the Senate, what did they do to push for an upward review of the age of the girl child as defined in the bill?

Nothing.

As I earlier said in page 0, Wole Soyinka is a senile attention seeking fool.

Your hatred will never make you see things through. Even with the siggy you have, it's sure you can never view things objectively as far as it it coming from a Yoruba.
I pity those who waste time engaging you.

stinggy:


Your hatred will never make you see things through. Even with the siggy you have, it's sure you can never view things objectively as far as it it coming from a Yoruba.
I pity those who waste time engaging you.

Are your Tajus and Mulikats not attacking Sen. Chris all over this thread?

BackDatAssUp:


Are your Tajus and Mulikats not attacking Sen. Chris all over this thread?

The same way they were attacking Kashamu the other day. But you would never see anything wrong as far as it comes from 'your people'.

Can you see the difference now?

BackDatAssUp:


Are your Tajus and Mulikats not attacking Sen. Chris all over this thread?

A woman is supposed to protect womanhood, not endangering it.

After1one:



Awwwwww. Spits

Lame

A woman who says Yerima, our very own Yerima, is a protector of child rights should be a woman whose words you take with more than a pinch of salt.

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:

OrlandoOwoh:

A woman is supposed to protect womanhood, not endangering it.

You are really dense.

Sen. Chris did not propose legislation to encourage the abuse of young girls rather this is the first time Pedophillia enters our legal books.

Stop with this your foolishness, it is becoming to embarrassing.

BackDatAssUp:


Aisha was given into marriage by her father to Buhari when she was just 12.

Aisha is clocking 40 this year.

Lol. 1971 to 2015 is 40 years?

Sensational. Anyway you have veered off the topic. Normal PDP tactic.

Brugo:


Lol. 1971 to 2015 is 40 years?

Sensational. Anyway you have veered off the topic. Normal PDP tactic.

Aisha's real birth year is 1976!

Your Queen is a child bride.

Hello Everyone. My company Dreamquest Multimedia has just released a commemorative game on the recent victory by the APC.

You can download it for free on the Google Play store here -> https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Dreamquest+Multimedia&hl=en

Please contact me if you need web development, interactive media and game development services. My number is +2349032291323.

Mogidi:


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

I don't think it was her Bill he was condemning. I think there was another Bill that stated 11years as consensual age of sex.

BackDatAssUp:


Buhari has a lot in comparison to Mohammed and I don't mean his first name and that of his wife.

[img]http://shariaunveiled.files./2014/07/muhammad-and-aisha-1-revised.jpg?w=627[/img]

Like Mohammed and Aisha

I

BackDatAssUp:


Buhari has a lot in comparison to Mohammed and I don't mean his first name and that of his wife.

[img]http://shariaunveiled.files./2014/07/muhammad-and-aisha-1-revised.jpg?w=627[/img]

Like Mohammed and Aisha

I am not a Muslim but this is considered blasphemous!

grandstar:


I am not a Muslim but this is considered blasphemous!

Moslems do not denounce the fact that Mohammed married Aisha when he was 56 and she just 9.

In moslem countries this type of marriage is even encouraged and as can be seen from the northern moslem senators inputs in the bill in question, child marriages are part of their Islamic culture.

So there is nothing blasphemous about stating the obvious.

If they saya girl attains adulthood as soon As she gets married, isnt it as good as saying you can have sex with an 8 year old as long as you have married her?. She is no more a child but an adult so it cant be tagged abuse of minor. That is what wole soyinka is against. That is what he says the bill isnt preventing. You say no to rape of kids but yes to marriage of kids. So all in all, its okay to bang a kid as long as you have married her. Isnt that rape too?

Mogidi:


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

Na today u know ?

too long man!you wanna kill my battery?

BackDatAssUp:


Moslems do not denounce the fact that Mohammed married Aisha when he was 56 and she just 9.

In moslem countries this type of marriage is even encouraged and as can be seen from the northern moslem senators inputs in the bill in question, child marriages are part of their Islamic culture.

So there is nothing blasphemous about stating the obvious.

No. Its your picture of 'Mohammed' that is blasphemous! Its considered Haram[b][/b]! I am not a Muslim.

BackDatAssUp:


Did you see her original draft and compare it to that which was finally passed?

She initially demanded life imprisonment for any one who defiles a girl under 18 yrs.

Your Ab0kis do not see 18 as the age of sexual maturity and thus defined a girl child as one who is yet to enter puberty.

In passing a bill, a consensus has to be arrived and the north brought their mohammedian doctrine to bear.

Blame the northern senators
Blame the useless 1999 constitution which allows for Sharia law
Blame Sharia
Blame Islamic doctrine
Blame Mohammed for liking small girls.

In bold:
the 1999 constitution only allowed sharia civil laws - not sharia criminal laws. Adoption of sharia criminal laws is unconstitutional. There is the belief that close to 90% of Nigerians are ignorant of this.

Sharia problems started in Nigeria only since 2000 when Sani Yerima introduced use of sharia criminal laws like stoning women to death for adultery, cutting off hands of petty thieves, etc., to the north of Nigeria; after which use of sharia criminal laws were adopted with speed in all the now 12 sharia states in the north of Nigeria. Since then worse religious problems have arrested development in Nigeria.

This isn't even a northern problem throughout Nigeria young children are abused. Here is an opportunity to at least protect children and look at our senators incapable. They cannot even protect the young from sexual abuse. It's horrific. Nigerians are terrible terrible people.

I was quite taken aback by WS' write up on the bill. It was clear to me that he'd either not read the bill at all or had read a distorted copy. I'm happy the ex - senator has respectfully responded and I hope the Professor will retract that article with full apologies.

TheOtherview:


Of course you are under no obligation to do anything. It is enough to glibly assert that Soyinka was simply following hordes of social media commentators?

I mean, why would Soyinka not put his reputation on line, by refusing to consult legal birds, before voicing his concerns openly. After all, according to the Maxymillianos of this world, Soyinka is easily given to making ill-informed remarks? At least so the retaarded logic goes?

Maxymilliano and others of his ilk would of course meander around Falana's take, while giving pride of place to Anyanwu's Op-ED?
That the former provides a clearer timeline of events is of absolutely no material consequence - Tyranny of the tribe!

please understand the stand of prof soyinka. He did not fault the content of senator Anyanwu's bill rather he faulted the fact that it would not meet its intended good purpose. Because yerima earlier sponsor a bill which recognises any married person as an adult hence is not a child by law. The implication of this is that a peadophile would/could marry an eleven year old child. And begin to sleep with her. His action would not be regarded as defilement because the girl in question is full grown as a result of marriage. This is a legal loophole which most senators are truly aware of... n.