There is a general misconception of the issue at
hand, and this is blamable on the nature of our propaganda-media. The stock in
trade of most of our media houses is fanning the embers of controversy in an
already volatile nation through rumor mongering and the parade of half-baked controversial
stories, most times without taking time to get the correct gist.
From a televised session of the Senate's sitting on this issue, and corroborated by
live discussions on the same issue over time on the tube, what the Senate
considered for determination under the review of Nigerian constitution was
'Renunciation of Citizenship Under the Nigerian Constitution' as contained
under Section 29 (4b) which provides that any woman who is married shall be
deemed to be of full age. A Senator argued that in Islam, a married woman is
deemed to be of age no matter how young she is. Section 29 (4a) of the 1999 constitution already
designates 18 years as the full age for any Nigerian who wishes to renounce
his/her citizenship. Clause 4b further adds that for women, despite the 18
years already prescribed in Clause 4a, marriage removes the impediment of age
to this regard. Thus, a married woman can be considered to be of full age. The senate
therefore voted with the aim of removing the Clause 4b which automatically qualifies a
married woman as being of age to denounce her citizenship if she wishes, no matter how young she is, and which was the point
of reference of the senator who raised the issue. Unfortunately, those who
voted in favour of the retention of the Clause 4b out-numbered their opponents.
So, there was no new law passed in favour of child
marriage. Rather, the vote to remove a clause which automatically qualifies a married woman as legible to renounce her citizenship even if she is below 18 years, which then implies the possibility of having married women who are bellow 18 years, and which may provide a weak spot in
the Law for a smart lawyer’s justification of child marriage in favour
of a client was lost. An effort to stamp out the clause which implies the
possibility of child marriage was lost by voting. This is quite different from
the question of ‘underage marriage’ as widely reported in our propaganda media.
The alleged endorsement of
underage marriage by the Senate was a total misrepresentation of what the
lawmakers considered or voted for under section 29 (4a & b) of the 1999
Constitution, and as presented for consideration by its committee on
constitution review.
