Senate did not vote on marriage age (RIGHT OFREPLY)

Senator ENYI ABARIBE is Chairman, Senate Committe on Information,
Media and Public Affairs.
THE Senate last week voted on the report of its Constitution Review
Committee and at the end of it all, it once again achieved a milestone
in altering the 1999 Constitution to bring the document in line with
the generalaspirations of the Nigerian people.
However, while the Senate appreciates and welcomes the healthy debate
that ensued within the public on some aspects of the sections that
were voted on, which it sees as a veritable feedback that signals the
public acceptance and overwhelming followership of the happenings in
the hallowed chambers, it is nonetheless bothered by negative
commentaries which suggest a deliberate misinformation and distortion
of what actually transpired on the floor when the distinguished
senators voted on the each section of the report by its constitution
amendment committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did the senators vote, neither
did they ever deliberate on any clause that has to do with marriage
age. Theyalso did not vote to introduce any new law on underage
marriage. The senators only voted to amend some clauses in the
articles that were already in the Constitution.
It is pertinent for the public to know that the section up for
amendment had to do with persons qualified to renounce Nigerian
citizenship.
The 1999 Constitution as amended in Section 29 (which has suddenly
become a hot issue for both informed and uninformed interpretation in
the press and social media), states in section 1 S29(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".
S29(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'.
The prevailing view of the committee before the initial vote was that
Section 29(4)(a) was gender neutral but with section 29(4)(b)
specifically mentioning "woman" , it now looked discriminatory and as
such is in conflict with section 42 of the Constitution which
prohibits discrimination of any form. The committee thus sought for it
to be expunged from the Constitution.
Senators, therefore, voted earlier to expunge that sub-section and it
scaledthrough by 75 votes. Note that under the Constitution, to amend
any clauseyou will need 2/3 of the members of the Senate which
translates to 73 votes.
However, the revisiting of the voting on that section was to take care
of objections raised by Distinguished Senator Ahmad Sani Yerima, among
others. He pointed out that removing the clause 29(4)(b) contradicts
section 61 of the second schedule of the Constitution which restricts
the National Assembly from considering matters relating to Islamic and
Customary law.
Revisiting the section was pure and simple a pragmatic approach. It
had to be so, considering that the Senate as the representative of the
people represents all interests and all shades of opinion.
Therefore, a fresh vote was called and even though those who wanted
thatsection expunged were more in number, they failed to muster the
needed votes to get it through. What it meant was that majority of
senators voted to remove it but they were short of the 2/3 majority or
(73) required to alter an article of the Constitution.
Had voting in constitutional amendment not been based on the mandatory
two-third or (73) votes of senators at the seating, perhaps the issue
wouldhave been rested by now, but be that as it may the outcome of the
voting remains the position of the Senate. S29(4)(b) still remains
part of the Constitution.
What is important is for the issue to be put in its proper perspective.
This clarification has become necessary because of the willful and
deliberate act to distort and misinform the general public on what was
neither discussed nor contemplated by the distinguished senators.
At no time was marriage as a section of the Constitution discussed or
voted for. The National Assembly in 2003 had passed "The Child Rights
Act" which specifically took care of the fears being expressed in a
cross section of the media. The Act clearly states in section 21: "No
person under the age of 18 years is capable of contracting a valid
marriage, and accordingly, any marriage so contracted is null and void
and of no effect whatsoever".
22. 1. "No parent, guardian or any other person shall betroth a child
to any person"
2. A betrothal in contravection of subsection (1) of this section is
null and void.
Therefore, under the Childs Right Act the lawful age of marriage is 18years.
The Constitution does not provide for many rules of human engagement
such as marriage and only makes provision for specialised laws to take
care of such matters. That is why the National Assembly now made a
specialised legislation to address the matter of lawful age for
marriage as seen above.
In fact, section 23 of the Childs Right Act provides stiff penalties:
A person (a) who marries a child; or
(b) to whom a child is betrothed ; or
(c) who promotes the marriage of a child; or
(d) who betroths a child commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) or
imprisonment for a term of five years or to both such fine and
imprisonment.
It was the Senate of this Federal Republic that made this law which is
still operative in some states. The snag in any case is that the Child
RightAct does not automatically apply across the country. It has to be
domesticated on state by state basis by the respective Houses of
Assembly. Up to date 12 states are yet to domesticate or adopt the
law. It is with respect to those states that the advocacy on age of
marriage should be directed since it was the National Assembly that
passed the lawin the first place.
The essence of this further clarification is to remind all that the
Senate in its wisdom passed that law, which has become operative in
most states with the exception of the remaining 12.
The Senate has done its best with utmost concern for national interest
andits leadership has ably navigated its affairs with high level of
integrity, sense of responsibility and fairness to all Nigerians.
It would have made a whole lot of sense had the various commentators
displayed the capacity to reason and do due diligence to the issue
before rushing to conclude that the Senate did what was not even
before it.
Senator ENYI ABARIBE is Chairman, Senate Committe on Information,
Media and Public Affairs.