VirginFinder:


Because they all reported the same thing. They can't all be wrong!

From the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, we establish the truth...

Even if you give us your own "accurate" reportage. It won't fly!

How many times have newspapers all reported something that was later found to be false. Didn’t all papers report corona could not go person to person? They all got it from one source - WHO

CanadaOrBust:


Reading sec 7 u arrive at the conclusion that age of consent is 11. U swear that in your honor?

Stop this bro. Our opinions here don't matter. The courts and judges know what it is - 11.

I am for age of consent to be pegged at 18 provided the lady in question is still a virgin.

Where the lady in question is no longer a virgin, she should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

CanadaOrBust:


How many times have newspapers all reported something that was later found to be false. Didn’t all papers report corona could not go person to person? They all got it from one source - WHO

That means WHO was wrong not the papers

In this case, are you implying the court is wrong

VirginFinder:


You missed the point. Those who drafted the law are smarter than you are. And they deliberately drafted it that way to deceive you into believing that the age of consent is 18.

When they say smokers are liable to die young, does it mean they all die young

But if they say, smokers shall die young, isn't that a categorical statement on what awaits a smoker

Hahahahahaha

You can’t be this slow.
THAT DEALS WITH PUNISHMENT!!!
Here is the correct analogy:
“If u r convicted of smoking u will die young”
Whether u r convicted of smoking or not is NOT dependent on dying young.
Anything can be the punishment for smoking, it doesn’t matter!

CanadaOrBust:


You can’t be this slow.
THAT DEALS WITH PUNISHMENT!!!
Here is the correct analogy:
“If u r convicted of smoking u will die young”
Whether u r convicted of smoking or not is NOT dependent on dying young.
Anything can be the punishment for smoking, it doesn’t matter!

Stop this unnecessary academic exercise.

Experts in this matter have determined that only Section 7 (2) is categorical in stating that the age of consent is 11.

Other were talking about liability based on age range. Empty!

Even though it pains me to type : I think VirginFinder's argument seems to be more solid.

The "liable" clause that was added suggests that circumstances will be considered which might include parental and victim's consent, religious inclination and culture. Anyhow the lawyer wants to twist it.

As for 11 and below, nothing of such.

Cc CanadaorBust VirginFinder

DontBullshitMe:
Even though it pains me to type : I think VirginFinder's argument seems to be more solid.

The "liable" clause that was added suggests that circumstances will be considered which might include parental and victim's consent, religious inclination and culture. Anyhow the lawyer wants to twist it.

Cc CanadaorBust VirginFinder

Thank you my brother!

Infact aside the word 'liable' absent in section 7(2), only section 7 (2) contains the word 'sentence'. Others dont:

7. (1) A person who commits an act which causes
Defilement
penetration with a child is guilty of an offence called
of children
defilement.
(2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

(4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years old is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

I need to go to bed. My wife is getting angry already...

I have enjoyed the debate.

It may take a while before I come online tomorrow (later today)...

@CanadaorBust please release me. Thank you.

Goodnight all. May the LORD wake us up hale and hearty.

VirginFinder:


Based on what lawyers and activists have said and the recent court rulings, the age of consent is 11.
What I read in section 7 is too technical to be interpreted by a layman in legal matters like me and is of no consequence altogether.
I have to rely on what legal ogas-at-the-top say.

Yet u know enough to know 7. (2) is categorical.
What we are debating here is what is on the books as the age of consent NOT what was ruled in any case or cases!

VirginFinder:


Stop this bro. Our opinions here don't matter. The courts and judges know what it is - 11.

I am for age of consent to be pegged at 18 provided the lady in question is still a virgin.

Where the lady in question is no longer a virgin, she should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

Nigeria papers who have analyzed it in print all agree the written age of consent is 18. You yourself indicated that judges don’t always follow the written law

DontBullshitMe:
Even though it pains me to type : I think VirginFinder's argument seems to be more solid.

The "liable" clause that was added suggests that circumstances will be considered which might include parental and victim's consent, religious inclination and culture. Anyhow the lawyer wants to twist it.

As for 11 and below, nothing of such.

Cc CanadaorBust VirginFinder

The “liable” pertains to punishment AFTER u are convicted. It does not have any effect on wether u r convicted or not. U r convicted because it is proved u committed defilement and not because u “either shall or liable to” get life imprisonment or slap on the wrist!”

VirginFinder:



Thank you my brother!

Infact aside the word 'liable' absent in section 7(2), only section 7 (2) contains the word 'sentence'. Others dont:

U can’t possibly be this slow. You are discussing punishment AFTER conviction. What we are discussing here is what LEADS TO conviction NOT wether the person is “sentenced” or given a car AFTER conviction.
We are NOT debating the right punishment for defilement, what we are debating is what is defilement. One has nothing to do with the other!

VirginFinder:
I need to go to bed. My wife is getting angry already...

I have enjoyed the debate.

It may take a while before I come online tomorrow (later today)...

@CanadaorBust please release me. Thank you.

Goodnight all. May the LORD wake us up hale and hearty.

Ok my bro. At least now u KNOW the letter of the law regardless of what any judge chooses to rule or not rule: SEX WITH ANYONE UNDER 18 IS A CRIME THAT CAN FETCH YOU UP TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT!
God bless, and don’t forget to collect your L

CanadaOrBust:


Ok my bro. At least now u KNOW the letter of the law regardless of what any judge chooses to rule or not rule: SEX WITH ANYONE UNDER 18 IS A CRIME THAT CAN FETCH YOU UP TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT!
God bless, and don’t forget to collect your L

If wishes were horses, CanadaorBust will ride...

I have shown you overwhelming evidence that the age of consent in Nigeria is 11. The world acknowledges that via ageofconsent.net/world

Even those who defiled girls under 11 are not getting life imprisonment, unfortunately.

Delude yourself as you wish, your choice...

CanadaOrBust:


U can’t possibly be this slow. You are discussing punishment AFTER conviction. What we are discussing here is what LEADS TO conviction NOT wether the person is “sentenced” or given a car AFTER conviction.
We are NOT debating the right punishment for defilement, what we are debating is what is defilement. One has nothing to do with the other!

What is punishment where there is no sentencing

Like I said the drafters of the law are way smarter than folks like you.

Only sections 7(2) spells it out categorically that whoever defiles a girl under 11 sentenced to life thereby pegging the age of consent at 11.

(2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

(4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years old is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

In sections 7(3) and 7(4), you can only be liable upon conviction! So if there is no conviction, you go free!!

There is a likelihood that there will be no conviction/sentencing in sections 7(3) and 7(4) as against section 7(2) which did not mince words and was categorical.

In Yinusa's case, there was a conviction because he defiled her against her consent having first abducted her from her parents.

Are you smarter than the activists below

https://www.change.org/p/it-s-never-your-fault-raise-the-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-from-11-to-18

https://medium.com/@munyalekwabe/child-protection-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-d144eaa8dd15

CanadaOrBust:


The “liable” pertains to punishment AFTER u are convicted. It does not have any effect on wether u r convicted or not. U r convicted because it is proved u committed defilement and not because u “either shall or liable to” get life imprisonment or slap on the wrist!”

You are only liable upon conviction in sections 7(3) and 7(4).

Where there is no conviction, there is no liability! Can you now see that you are the slow one

CanadaOrBust:


Some emotional Nigerian papers who have analyzed it in print all agree the written age of consent is 18. You yourself indicated that judges don’t always follow the written law

In any case, papers don't preside over court cases.

https://thenationonlineng.net/defilement-mischiefs-law/

https://allafrica.com/stories/201506170104.html

Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill 2015 a few weeks ago, there has been great agitation from several quarters about the true import of the Bill. To many of the pundits and agitators, the Bill is anathema because of its anticipated provision criminalising sexual activity with a child aged eleven or less. In their opinion, such a provision officially sanctions eleven years as the approved age for sexual activity by children in Nigeria.

And judges always rule based on the written law. They, however, have prerogative of tempering justice with mercy. Stop misquoting me!

CanadaOrBust:


Yet u know enough to know 7. (2) is categorical.
What we are debating here is what is on the books as the age of consent NOT what was ruled in any case or cases!

Sure I know enough based on overwhelming evidence from recent court judgments, activists, ageofconsent.net/world etc etc

Judges rule based on what is in the books...

VirginFinder:


What is punishment where there is no sentencing

Like I said the drafters of the law are way smarter than folks like you.

Only sections 7(2) spells it out categorically that whoever defiles a girl under 11 sentenced to life thereby pegging the age of consent at 11.




In sections 7(3) and 7(4), you can only be [b]liable upon conviction! So if there is no conviction, you go free!!
[/b]
There is a likelihood that there will be no conviction/sentencing in sections 7(3) and 7(4) as against section 7(2) which did not mince words and was categorical.

In Yinusa's case, there was a conviction because he defiled her against her consent having first abducted her from her parents.

Are you smarter than the activists below

https://www.change.org/p/it-s-never-your-fault-raise-the-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-from-11-to-18

https://medium.com/@munyalekwabe/child-protection-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-d144eaa8dd15

Bros Virgin no vex o. You still dey argue this?
How can you read that thing I am looking and decide it says consensual see with someone 11 to 18 is not a crime
See the bolded. (So if there is no conviction, you go free!!) Are you thinking at all? Same thing applies in 7(2). Same thing applies in any law: If there is no conviction you go free!!
"Liable to" is in many laws. It means about the same as "shall". They are used interchangeably. Unless you find another line of argument, give it up. You have lost this one.

PoliteActivist:

Bros Virgin no vex o. You still dey argue this?
How can you read that thing I am looking and decide it says consensual see with someone 11 to 18 is not a crime
See the bolded. (So if there is no conviction, you go free!!) Are you thinking at all? Same thing applies in 7(2). Same thing applies in any law: If there is no conviction you go free!!

Unfortunately, that's what the law implies going by the recent court judgments we have seen, concerns raised by lawyers and activists and ageofconsent.net.

I propose that the age of consent should be pegged at 18 for girls who are still virgins...

Any lady who is no more a virgin should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

VirginFinder:


Unfortunately, that's what the law implies going by the recent court judgments we have seen, concerns raised by lawyers and activists and ageofconsent.net.

I propose that the age of consent should be pegged at 18 for girls who are still virgins...

Any lady who is no more a virgin should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

I personally think 18 is too high (I'm just being honest). I think it should be 15 but not a crime if age difference is two or three

PoliteActivist:


I personally think 18 is too high (I'm just being honest). I think it should be 15 but not a crime if age difference is two or three

Honestly, even 18 is still young. I can proudly say all my female family members were still virgins at 18...

But you must understand that some girls have become exposed at very early age. Some were defiled. Others just got inquisitive and decided to explore on their own with their male peers.
Such girls are no more innocent! They must be adjudged to be able to give consent.

I shared my experience earlier with a girl who was ready to grab my diccck if I allowed her. She had been abused at 9 years of age.
Such a girl must be adjudged to be able to give consent. If I had slept with her, why will anybody accuse me of defilement/rape

VirginFinder:


Unfortunately, that's what the law implies going by the recent court judgments we have seen, concerns raised by lawyers and activists and ageofconsent.net.

I propose that the age of consent should be pegged at 18 for girls who are still virgins...

Any lady who is no more a virgin should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

By the way you quoted me before I finished. Here's the rest of my post:
"Liable to" is in many laws. It means about the same as "shall". They are used interchangeably. Unless you find another line of argument, give it up. You have lost this one.
Below, I googled meaning of liable in law

VirginFinder:


Honestly, even 18 is still young. I can proudly say all my female family members were still virgins at 18...

But you must understand that some girls have become exposed at very early age. Some were defiled. Others just got inquisitive and decided to explore on their own with their male peers.
Such girls are no more innocent! They must be adjudged to be able to give consent.

I shared my experience earlier with a girl who was ready to grab my diccck if I allowed her. She had been abused at 9 years of age.
Such a girl must be adjudged to be able to give consent. If I had slept with her, why will anybody accuse me of defilement/rape

Well that makes no sense. So that raped 5 year-old should now be adjudged to be able ti give consent. So once victimized they should now be left unprotected and open to further victimization. As if it was their fault. How wicked indeed!

PoliteActivist:

By the way you quoted me before I finished. Here's the rest of my post:
"Liable to" is in many laws. It means about the same as "shall". They are used interchangeably. Unless you find another line of argument, give it up. You have lost this one.
Below, I googled meaning of liable in law

You guys won't stop amazing me. How dare you argue with judges, lawyers activists and ageofconsent.net/world

What makes you think you know more than they

I have shown you many instances:

Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill 2015 a few weeks ago, there has been great agitation from several quarters about the true import of the Bill. To many of the pundits and agitators, the Bill is anathema because of its anticipated provision criminalising sexual activity with a child aged eleven or less. In their opinion, such a provision officially sanctions eleven years as the approved age for sexual activity by children in Nigeria.

https://allafrica.com/stories/201506170104.html

Defilement of Under-aged Girls: What is the Verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria?

Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC
The above notable and profound pronouncement forms part of the ipsissima verba of my lord, the Hon. Justice Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when he delivered the leading Judgment on Friday, 30th January, 2015 in the case of BONIFACE ADONIKE v. THE STATE (2015) 7 N.W.L.R (pt 1458) 237 at 266 paragraphs B-D. The case of Boniface Adonike (Supra) once more brings to the fore the duty on sentencing authorities to show in the application of the law that society abhors cases of defilement of young girls. The law on defilement of under-aged girls in Nigeria is provided in Section 218 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 42, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. The section provides that “any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without whipping”. Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without whipping. A prosecution for either of the offences defined above in this section must be begun within two months after the offence is committed. A person cannot be convicted of either of the offences defined in this section upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.

https://www.pressreader.com/nigeria/thisday/20150804/282080570550839

Count five: “That you, Yinusa Dahiru, had unlawful carnal knowledge of Ese Oruru without her consent and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 357 of the criminal code Act and punishable under section 358 of the Criminal code ACT, Cap. C.38 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.”

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/05/ese-orurus-abductor-sentenced-to-26-years-in-prison/

Activists raising concerns

The aim of this petition is to make the constitution clearer on child marriage in Nigeria, including section 29(4b)which says that, “This is by its provision that any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.” Due to the fact that this law is not clearly stated, it implies that being 11 or even younger, and in a marriage allows the culprit go Scott free,making the small girl child suffer .

https://www.change.org/p/it-s-never-your-fault-raise-the-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-from-11-to-18

While looking into the Age of Consent of every country in Africa, I was amused to find out that Nigeria (Our ‘Giant of Africa’) has the lowest of them all. Nigeria puts its Age of Consent at 11 years. Simply meaning that if a child is raped at the age of 11 and below, it is considered as Statutory Rape but above 11, then all the perpetrator has done is abuse a person who can make ‘rational decisions’.

https://medium.com/@munyalekwabe/child-protection-age-of-consent-in-nigeria-d144eaa8dd15

And finally ageofconsent.net/world

When they say smokers are liable to die young, does it imply they will all die young

But when they say smokers shall die young, it means they can't escape.

Only section 7(2) of the sexual offences bill of 2015 was categorical on the issue of defilement and it technically pegged the age of consent at 18.

PoliteActivist:


Well that makes no sense. So that raped 5 year-old should now be adjudged to be able ti give consent. So once victimized they should now be left unprotected and open to further victimization. As if it was their fault. How wicked indeed!

Of course, the child must be 11 and above to be able to give consent assuming she is no longer a virgin. We all know that once a child has been exposed too early, they often go wild and begin to yearn for it themselves.

That's why we must do all to protect our girls from getting exposed early so that they don't start having sexual urges like adults.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

Bros VirginFinder, below, by your logic guy sex is legal in Nigeria because they use "liable"

PoliteActivist:

By the way you quoted me before I finished. Here's the rest of my post:
"Liable to" is in many laws. It means about the same as "shall". They are used interchangeably. Unless you find another line of argument, give it up. You have lost this one.
Below, I googled meaning of liable in law

I KNOW virginfinder knows he has lost the argument just that pride won’t let him humbly collect his L and gracefully bow out

VirginFinder:


Of course, the child must be 11 and above to be able to give consent assuming she is no longer a virgin. We all know that once a child has been exposed too early, they often go wild and begin to yearn for it themselves.

That's why we must do all to protect our girls from getting exposed early so that they don't start having sexual urges like adults.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

Actually the opposite is often the case. Many girls become lesbians, can't stand being penetrated

VirginFinder:


Of course, the child must be 11 and above to be able to give consent assuming she is no longer a virgin. We all know that once a child has been exposed too early, they often go wild and begin to yearn for it themselves.

That's why we must do all to protect our girls from getting exposed early so that they don't start having sexual urges like adults.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

Here is what u said. There is no age. The only provision u gave is that the girl must have been having sex:

But you must understand that some girls have become exposed at very early age. Some were defiled. Others just got inquisitive and decided to explore on their own with their male peers.
Such girls are no more innocent! They must be adjudged to be able to give consent.

PoliteActivist:
Bros VirginFinder, below, by your logic guy sex is legal in Nigeria because they use "liable"

What is all this Stop grasping unto straws, abeg.

There are three subsections in the sexual offences bill addressing the SAME matter

Section 7(2) says "shall be sentenced" upon conviction

Section 7(3) says "liable" upon conviction

Section 7(4) says "liable" upon conviction

Why didn't section 7(2) just read "A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged 18 years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life" and leave it there

Of course, they were out to confuse and outsmart people like you...

Are you smarter than these people

Since the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill 2015 a few weeks ago, there has been great agitation from several quarters about the true import of the Bill. To many of the pundits and agitators, the Bill is anathema because of its anticipated provision criminalising sexual activity with a child aged eleven or less. In their opinion, such a provision officially sanctions eleven years as the approved age for sexual activity by children in Nigeria.

https://allafrica.com/stories/201506170104.html

CanadaOrBust:


I KNOW virginfinder knows he has lost the argument just that pride won’t let him humbly collect his L and gracefully bow out

I think you are right. I don't know how anyone can read that bill and say that it says 11 is age of consent.