July 30, 2013 – My Take On Child Bride,
Underage Marriage In Nigeria “I Laugh In
Tears With Nigerian Senators”
This is my take on the supposed child’s
marriage bill that recently generated loads of
debate both on the media and internet.
I took a whole lot of my time to have a critical
perusal at the activities of the senate on that
faithful day, candidly speaking, I am so
disappointed at the way the media fomented
their emptiness married with the fact that our
distinguished senators lacks in the dispensation
of the constitutional duties as the present
situation drags it to our notice that average of
our elected senator don’t really bother about the
merit or demerit of the bill they oppose or
against in as much as it does not affect their
monthly sittings allowance and other packages.
Firstly, I take a frown look at the despicable
information the media fed us with under the
disguise of FREEDOM OF INFORMATION. It
should be noted herein that in the first world
countries where the freedom of information are
widely enjoyed, misinformation is also a criminal
offence that attracts heavy punishment on the
disseminator.
Secondly, for the lay minded, the controversial
section 29 of the 1999 constitution is focused on
renunciation of citizenship.
And the subsection (1) of the constitution states;
Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to
renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a
declaration in the prescribed manner for
renunciation.
The subsection (2) of the celebrated section
states;
The president shall cause the declaration made
under subsection (1) of this section to be
registered and upon such registration shall
cease to be a citizen of Nigeria.
Continuing, subsection (3) professes as follows;
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.
Lastly, the over glorified subsection (4) now
states;
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.
From all indication, I take a solid stand on the
side of this section and its subsections has
nothing to do with marriage nor age at which a
female child(ren) can enter into a marriage.
Nonetheless I share the view that it thus
encourages child’s marriage.
With due respect to the norm that gave birth to
the 1999 constitution, the dead law was totally
silence on the ground at which a person can
renounce his citizenship, in the like manner, it is
right to say that our 1999 constitution breaks
the gene for renunciation.
At this juncture, I applaud though for the first
time the uniform men imposed constitution.
Since the commencement of the fourth republic,
Nigeria state cannot frankly state that she has
provided a constitution that truly justify the
fallacy of “we the people” the preamble of the
CFRN 1999 committed. Therefore, in my humble
view I see the various attempts to amend the
1999 constitution by the national assembly as an
attempt to place a new wine in an old bottle or
patching an old sick cloth with new one.
In the course of bringing alive the truly “we the
people” constitution, the upper chamber
thought it worthwhile to take a holistic approach
of the military given constitution, forthwith the
section 29 (4)(b) sprung from a controversial
pervert though distinguish senator.
At this juncture, I sat back, laugh and wept at
the interpretation the long silently stayed
subsection enjoyed by the people and media
which is impari-materia with the intention of the
distinguished pervert.
The subsection 4(b) is plain and unequivocal;
therefore I object to it neither interpreted under
the golden nor the mischief rule of
interpretation. I forthwith subscribe to its literal
meaning which is;
A woman who as not attain the “full age” (18
years) required by the constitution which is a
conditional precedent for her to renounce her
citizenship, but has gotten married can enjoy
the status of “full age” for the sake of this
section. Nothing more, nothing less.
It should be committed to memory, that the
section as painted by the media does not in any
way provides for the age at which a female child
is due for marriage nor makes it a duty for
parents to give out there child into marriage at a
stipulated age.
It should be noted at this juncture, that
presently the Nigerian legal system provided for
two ways at which anyone can celebrate his or
her marriage. It may either be in line with the
customary law, or the statute. The statute
specifically provides that parties that intends to
enter into a marriage contract must have attain
the age of major which is impari-materia with
the constitutional provision of full age. On the
other hand, the celebration of marriage under
the customary laws practiced in Nigeria gives no
specific age for a male child or a female child to
enter into a marriage. Frankly speaking, Ago-
Iwoye where I stayed as undergraduate you will
see a girl of 14-15 years old being proud to be
mother of 2 or 3. Therefore, we leaving the
material and fighting the immaterial is a mere
chasing of shadow, because our archaic and
ancient customary practice that should not be
mate with the 21st century are what we should
compel to pass through the fire of repugnancy
test.
In the simplest term, it is the minor who found
her way through the customary way of
celebration of marriage that can benefit under
the over glorified subsection 4(b). At this stage
you will agree with me that before subsection
4(b) can be set on motion, the minor must have
gained the status of woman under the customary
law. Now you will see that subsection 4(b) is a
mere effect of the cause of customary law.
Leaving the customary laws that gives out our
infants in marriage day-in day-out and fighting
the subsection 4(b) is what I call
misrepresentation of pet cat for a lion cat. Now if
we compel these customary laws to go through
the repugnancy test and they fail, then the door
opened for minor to go into marriage be it at will
or by force will be close and the subsection 4(b)
which is the effect will die a natural death.
However, the subsection 4(b) that is our object
of debate though silence, but has enjoyed a very
long stay in our constitution has neither the
upper chamber nor the lower chamber could
notice it doing their various amendments before
their attention was called to it by our
distinguished SENATOR YERIMA.
It should be recalled from memory that the
distinguished senator is a sexually perverted
man whose sexual life is focused on infants and
immediately lay them off at the attainment of the
age of major, got engaged with a teen in Egypt
sometimes in 2011 after gotten divorced to
another teen immediately preceding her age of
major, has since 1999 creates loads of
controversial occurrence that various human
right organization as challenged in their
capacities.
The senator having called the attention of other
senators to the subsection 4(b) the chamber has
to go by the way of voting as provided for by the
constitution. The constitution provides that the
2/3 majority of the total house shall have the
power to alter the constitution, now the total
member of that house is 109, the 2/3 is 76, the
total number of senators that voted in support
that the subsection should be expunge is 60,
and the senators that voted NO that the
subsection should continue its silent stay under
the constitution are numbered 36. In the light of
the above, 16 votes is needed to the existing
vote to get the section into recycle bin.
In light of the above, what the senators
exercised is plainly their constitutional duty,
and the required vote is not gotten, so the
section should continue its stay until the
condition for its delete is finally met.
It seriously amused me as the media tainted the
activity of the chamber when they disseminated
that the chamber passed a law in support of
child marriage, please I havea question, is the
section a new section under the constitution?
What is the relationshipof that section with
marriage and when a female child can enter into
a marriage?
At this point, I challenge the media to go out
and sort for more good news worthy stories as
their misinformation is alarming lately.
Back to our senators, I laugh with tears when
the constituency members of
SENATORAKINFULIRE AYO (A.K.A ALLOVER)
of labour party summoned him, to come give the
detail why he chose to oppose the removal of
that section, instead of him seat them down and
explain in detail what actually transacted in the
chamber, he went into tear like a baby and gave
flimsy excuses that does not hold water.
”I am sorry, I voted in error, I never meant to
support female child marriage, I wanted to press
YES when I mistakenly press NO”
Imagine that from a senator of federal republic
of Nigeria. It marks the type of senators we
elected, senators that don’t know when to press
YES and NO, dumb head senators that less care
about the bill they pass in as much as it does not
affect their monthly sitting alliances and other
juicy packages. Anyway, a message for them,
our vote is much stronger than bullet, come
2015 we make a better change.
Summarily, my freelance thought is simulacrum
to the fact that the publicity the media gave the
activity of the upper chamber that day is
somewhat more than required and the
despicable and worrisome act of some members
of the senate is such a one that call for
undiligent look from the international
community.
[Article written by ABIMBOLA ADENIYI
OLUWAFEMI]

The issue is, will the Senator or any low mentality man snatch or kidnapp the girl child from the parents ? It takes two, or three to make the girl child indeed become defiled sexually and be taken off to marriage....if Parents put their foot down and says No...! No matter how much money such devlish man is offering as bride price.....Will any senator or man come, rape and kidnap the child for marriage ? .... Of course not!... Parents , pls protect your children.... Especially the girl child... As the govt is so depraved in their reasoning.