Senator Ike Ekwerenmadu-led Senate’s Constitution
Review Committee, in one of its numerous
recommendations, proposed the deletion of Section
29, Subsection 4b of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The vote,
which had already been taken and carried by the
required two-thirds members of the Senate (75 of
109), had to be revisited when Ahmed Sani Yerima
(ANPP-Zamfara West) invoked a point of order citing
Item 61 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the
Constitution. Even though he was initially ruled out of
order, the Senate President, “considering the
controversial nature of the clause”, acquiesced to the
call for a re-vote.
I reproduce the whole of Section 29 of the
Constitution hereunder:
29. (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.
(2) The President shall cause the declaration
made under subsection (1) of this section to
be registered and upon such registration, the
person who made the declaration shall cease
to be a citizen of Nigeria.
(3) The President may withhold the
registration of any declaration made under
subsection (1) of this section if-
(a) the declaration is made during
any war in which Nigeria is physically
involved; or
(b) in his opinion, it is otherwise
contrary to public policy.
(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.
and item 61, Part 1 of the Second Schedule under the
Exclusive List which gives the National Assembly the
Legislative Powers to consider:
61. The formation, annulment and
dissolution of marriages other than
marriages under Islamic law and Customary
law including matrimonial causes relating
thereto.
It is instructive to note that Section 29 falls under
Chapter III of the Constitution in which the entire
Chapter is devoted mainly to citizenship of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and all matters related
thereto. Of all the eight sections under this Chapter
(S25-32), Section 29 is devoted solely to renunciation
of citizenship. Evidently, one cannot renounce what s/
he does not previously have; hence the section
appertains only to those who previously hold Nigerian
citizenship. From the foregoing Section 29 as
presented above, S29(4)b which was proposed for
deletion had existed since the commencement of the
Constitution on May 29th, 1999 and has operated
without prejudice to any other provision(s) in the
Constitution. For emphasis, this subsection is
provided only as a proviso to S29(1) on which
categories of citizens are eligible to renounce their
citizenship.
To my mind, this subsection of the Constitution is
highly discriminatory and gender bias but against the
male gender. Notwithstanding, the provision is clear
about whose right(s) are further strengthened under
this clause. A man (married or not) and a woman (not
married) have to be 18 years and above before they
are eligible or able to renounce their citizenship of
Nigeria, even if prior to this age they feel a
compulsion to do so, the Constitution bars them from
jettisoning their “Nigerianness”. I dare say that in the
face of the multitudes of adversity confronting
Nigerians daily and the pervasive discontent within
the polity, a good number of Nigerians, given the free
chance, would renounce their citizenship well ahead
of this age whether or not it is a wise decision to
make.
In addition, the provision went further to single out
women who have additional rights by virtue of their
marriage. I believe it is the contemplation of the
drafters of our Constitution to ensure that a woman
having been married can elect to abandon her
Nigerian citizenship, given for instance, that she has
been married to a non-Nigerian. Of course, this is not
to preclude women who marry Nigerians but feel the
urge to acquire citizenship of a different country and
certainly, the clause was clear enough as to refer
specifically as ancillary to the earlier provision of
S29(1) which in my thinking is without prejudice to any
other section/clause of contained therein in the
Constitution. I suppose also that the spirit behind
subsection 4b is that you are first a first a Nigerian,
then a woman under 18, then married and now seek
to renounce your citizenship.
I do not think that S29 in whole or in part sets out to
consummate, annul or dissolve any marriage or
matrimonial cause(s) before a woman is 18 years of
age as had been variously peddled and which has
triggered wide protests and signature collections. I
perfectly understand if Nigerians feel the need to
champion a cause for the girl child and to protect their
rights but to associate that with the retention or
deletion of S29(4)b is a deliberate, willful but puerile
misrepresentation of the Senate proceedings of last
Tuesday.
If there is any iota of support I give to the numerous
calls for the protest gatherings across the country to
call attention to the desperate situation of child brides
and to bring same to a halt in Nigeria, it will be in
continuation of my 2010 opposition to Senator Ahmed
Yerima’s marriage to his 17-year-old Egyptian wife
(14-year-old as she then was) and not because he has
moved the motion to keep subsection 29(4)b in the
Constitution which, in my considered opinion, has
absolutely no relation to whether or not a girl child
should be married of as a minor. To think that this
provision is not even beneficial to Yerima’s wife
makes the entire episode misplaced.
Now, anyone who is truly interested in the situation of
the girl child will delve into a potpourri of extant laws
which legally defines what a marriage is in the
Nigerian context. Besides, to imagine that a Federal
Constitution for Nigeria will busy itself with such
mundane issues as marriage comes as laughable as
pedantic as it is. The applicable relevant laws on the
rights of all children vis-à-vis marital causes include
Child Rights Act 2003, Matrimonial Causes Act 1990,
Marriage Act 1990, Marriage (Validation) Act 1990,
Criminal Code (Southern Sates) Act 1990, and Penal
Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act 1990.
Imperfect as the Constitution of the Federal Republic
might be, it has far-reaching provisions that have
been inserted to safeguard the rights and privileges of
ALL Nigerians. For instance, Section 39(2) prohibits
discrimination with respect to all citizens, including
children. According to Section 15(2), national
integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst
discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex,
religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties
shall be prohibited. Section 17(3) also mandates the
government (federal of state) to direct its policies
towards ensuring that all citizens, without
discrimination on any group whatsoever, have the
opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood
as well as adequate opportunity to secure suitable
employment. Section 42(1) stipulates that a citizen of
Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place
of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by
reason only that he is such a person (a) be subjected
either expressly by, or in the practical application of,
any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or
administrative action of the government, to
disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria
of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin,
sex, religions or political opinions are not made
subject; or (b) be accorded either expressly by, or in
the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria
or any such executive or administrative action, any
privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens
of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places
of origin, sex, religions or political opinions. (2) No
citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or
deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of
his/her birth.
Essentially, there are sufficient provisions in the
Constitution as well as a cocktail of supportive laws,
which aim at protecting the rights of Nigerian children.
Perhaps, these laws have not been duly implemented,
or even invoked, to safeguard the lives of vulnerable
Nigerians. I am sure there are sufficient citations in
the various law libraries dotting the landscape
espousing the justiceability of Chapters III and IV of
the Constitution, but willful naivety is rife let alone to
call attention to respect and implementation of these
provisions at different tiers of society.
Still, there are gaps in these laws that have been
explored by the Yerimas of this world. Evidently, there
is not much to show for the actual enjoyment of the
principle of non-discrimination by children. Children
belonging to vulnerable groups, including girls,
children living in poverty, children born out of wedlock,
children with disabilities, children of outcasts and
children from minority groups continue to face serious
and widespread discrimination. To date, only 24 of the
36 states have domesticated the Child’s Rights Act
passed in September 2003.
Interestingly, the federal Child’s Rights Act of 2003
defines a child as one who is below the age of
eighteen years (Section 277, CRA 2003). However due
to the federal outlook of Nigeria, state to state have
their own definition of a child. As a federal entity,
Nigeria does not have a uniform definition of a child.
The available definitions differ and depending on the
purpose for which the definition is required. As a
result, the laws affecting children are scattered in
different legislations. The 1999 Constitution, for
instance, provides that a person can vote at 18 years
of age but cannot stand for election. The Matrimonial
Causes Act puts the age of maturity at 21, whereas
the Immigration Act stipulates that any person below
16 years is a minor, while for the purpose of criminal
responsibility, the Criminal Code provides for ages 7
to 12.
The Nigerian Marriage Act (LFN 1990 Cap 218) merely
provides that parental consent is necessary for the
statutory marriage of a person under the age of 21
years. Albeit, if a marriage takes place without such
parental consent, the marriage does not become null
and void but remains valid. The Matrimonial Causes
Act (LFN 1990 Cap 220) does not help either. It only
provides in Section 3 that for a marriage to be valid
under the Marriage Act, the child must be of
marriageable age but specifies no particular age.
The age of marriage is a highly controversial issue
varying among the States. In northwest and north-
central Nigeria, the age of marriage is set at 14. In the
northeastern part, the age of marriage is between the
second and third menstruation, while in the southern
states it varies from 16 to 18 years of age. The age of
sexual consent is 18 in most states (Sections 30, 31 &
32, L.F.N 2003, Cap C50). In the west zone, the age of
marriage varies from 16 to 19 years, nonetheless the
Child’s Rights Act par Section 31(3)(a)&(b) gave the
age of sexual consent as 18 when it averred that
“when a person is charged with an offence under this
section, it is immaterial that (a) the offender believed
the person to be of or above the age of 18 years; or
(b) the sexual intercourse was with the consent of the
child.
To wit, the instruments to challenge is not S29(4)b
and the institution to confront is definitely not the
Senate nor a certified deviant like Yerima. The
Constitution is unwieldy enough and I even advocate
that we prune down on all “non-essential” provisions
therein. Why for instance should a solemn
Constitution or a serious national parliament of a
federal state busy itself with such issues as the
marriage union? Those who have energy and have
called for protests – and I commend them – should
direct their passions at the various laws applicable in
the states because I cannot see our Constitution (the
Grundnorm) attending to all such issues as early
marriage. You have to be married first before S29(4)b
can become applicable to you. There are sufficient
extant laws that will continue to guarantee the
marriage or betrothal of young girls, even if S29(4)b
were to be torn from the Constitutional pages. Will a
properly constituted law court grant a child marriage
based on the provision of (4)b? I do not think so.
Egghead Odewale