My Take on This Child Bride Matter


I always try not to join in the public frenzy whenever a very hot topic is at stake. What’s the use adding to the cacophony of voices and misinformation all over the place? Everyone will now be signing silly petitions that never do anything. Going for protest walks, and ‘Occupying the country’, I feel things like these are a massive waste of time and energy, but this is besides the issue.

Concerning the new trend on this child bride matter, I have been pushed to say something.

The Facts

According to Vanguard Newspapers website on Tuesday 16th of July 2013, the Senate convened in the House Chambers to discuss and vote on the ongoing constitution review. There were 31 clauses to review, the requirement is two-third of the 109 senators must be in assent before any modification can be made, that is, 73 votes are needed before any of the modified clauses can be passed into law, if they do not get up to this required 73 the clauses won’t be passed and that part of the constitution remains the same untouched. If the required votes are obtained, the clause is passed and the constitution review is moved to the lower house(House of Representatives) to continue the exercise.

The Issue

A few issues were revisited, even after votes have been passed on them, and they were voted on again. The most controversial matter that caused a serious ripple in the house that day was the one raised by Senator Yerima (the same man who became popular after being alleged to have married a 13 year old Egyptian girl some years ago). According to the Senator, the Senate President allowed the House to revisit issues raised by other Senators but he refused to allow them revisit the issue he raised which, if passed, will infringe on the rights of Muslims in the country regarding marriage.

This hot issue particularly concerns Section 29 of the present CFRN, 1999. Subsection 4(b) which stipulates that any married person will be presumed to be of full age.

The Law

Section 29 is part of Chapter 3 of the Constitution which talks about citizenship. This section provides for renouncing one’s citizenship status, that anyone who renounces his citizenship must be of full age, the fourth subsection, which is the one in contention now (even if many of those who are making a furore out of it do not know what they’re haggling about), refers to the age required to be able to validly renounce his citizenship

(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 subsection, apparently, was initially modified to exclude this (b) proviso, until Yarima brought it back to fore and claimed that it’s prejudicial to Islamic adherents.

This brings the question of what part of Islamic law it’s infringing on, and how that adjustment is bringing the prejudice.

Now, let’s assume this (b) paragraph of Subsection 4 was actually still excluded, how does that affect Islam and its marital laws?

The exclusion means that there will be no presumption of full age anymore once the woman is married, this means that the girl is not free to renounce her citizenship, whether she’s married or not, making the sole requirement for capacity for this as 18 years of age..

Concerning Islam and marriage, I’ll refer to here, here and here for some comprehensive understanding, but to the germane part that’s relevant to this discourse, I’ll quote Dr Bilal Philips, an acclaimed Islamic scholar;

‘The concept of child marriage, of course in Islam, if a person classified as a child is married, when they reached the age of puberty and maturity, then they have a right to choose whether to go on with that marriage or not. So it becomes a marriage on paper. You know, they take place on paper on agreements with families; it is not going to be done again between individuals where the possibility of exploitation is, you know, more prevalent; but once the person reaches of age, it could be between two young people or could be a younger person and an older person, you know, either way male-female, female-male and when they reach that age of puberty then the decision is theirs. I know there has been something in the newspaper quite recently also, you know, concerning there is a girl in some place in the States who is about 13 years old got married, you know; it was a big thing to do that , particularly in the States; that State doesn’t have clear laws prohibiting it. So there was a big uproar about it, you know. But it had been going on for quite a long time … in the previous century the nineteenth, eighteenth … this is something not uncommon. The desire to want to protect young people is a genuine desire; but where, you know, families are involved, people are not being forced etc, then this is not something which should be looked at in the negative light.’

Let us bring out some points from the above,

…when they reached the age of puberty and maturity, then they have a right to choose whether to go on with that marriage or not…

….The desire to want to protect young people is a genuine desire; but where…people are not being forced…then this is not something which should be looked at in
the negative light.

So, there. Islam allows marrying a child, but the marriage is more or less practically nothing until the child is of age to give consent, and her consent is sine qua non to the existence of the union, this requirement exists anytime before or during the subsistence of the marriage. On whether or not Senator Yerima had sought consent of his 13-year old wife, well, I don’t know. Until I know, I choose not to comment on that.

One thing we should however note is that this Constitutional provision in 29(4)(b) applies ONLY TO THAT SECTION of the Constitution. It does not state in any way that this is what the law says about who is a child or who isn’t, it just says that so and so are the people that can renounce their citizenship, it doesn’t have force in other aspects of legal life. The statement For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section. isn’t there simply for fun

So why should the provision stay?

Personally, I opine that the provision should not be removed, and it should be retained as Yerima clamoured for, although our reasons are not pari-pasu. Yerima argues for the provision to stay because it affects the tenets of Islamic law, I prefer for it to stay because I feel it’s appropriate for that section. If one is married as a minor for whatever reason, she is already thrown the responsibility of an adult, now refusing a married young female the right to renounce her citizenship after being married appears to me to be unfair. My reasons are explained in more colourful detail by a gentleman in this article.

Why all these? You ask.

I simply wish to correct some misguided information flowing over social networks and the internet in general. I’m probably going to be crucified for this, but then…
From my understanding of the correct news sources:

    – The Senate is not passing a bill to sanction, approve, rationalise or assent to underage marriage.

    - The Provision of Section 29(b)(4) CFRN exists strictly for the purposes of citizenship matters and it is not a constitutional allowance to marry child brides, rather I see it is a provision that seeks to protect them and their rights to choose.

    - No part of the constitution, to my knowledge directly rationalised marriage or sex with minors

    - There is nothing to show that Senator Yerima wishes to push promulgation of a clause that allows child marriage.

    - The Child Rights Act is a statute that exists for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Nigerian Child, the legislature has done a decent job of passing a comprehensive Act to protect the child, it remains the problem is of enforcement, which is not really their cup of tea.

This public outcry is only fuelled by the fact that Yerima is a Senator who was one of those at the forefront of establishing Shariah law, and also that he was said to have married a 13-year old kid. So, he’s a bit of a notorious man, and any action of his will be met with intense cynicism.

What is even more disconcerting is that, there are other important issues which are being conveniently and ignorantly ignored by the general public, worthy of heavy outcry equal to this one being displayed. These issues are quietly being deliberated upon by these same Senators and its ramifications will affect the political and democratic structure of this country in a very huge way. One of them is the provision of terms of office of executives, this is currently being deliberated upon and it is possible that we may end up having a person staying in executive office of president and state governor for six years if the amendment is approved.

The single most important issue that I also find disturbing is the intention of this House to strip the president the power assent to any amendment of the constitution, and grant outright power of the legislature to make any bill passed into law irrespective of presidential assent. If passed, the implication of this is that, the men of this House (who have been proven from time to time to be composed of dishonourable men) will be granted free reign to make laws and modify any part of our present laws, including the constitution, to suit their purposes without having the president to at least vet these laws and grant assent.

Another issue being ignored in this exercise is the inclusion of former Senate President and Deputy Senate President as well as former Speaker and Deputy speakers of the
House of Representatives in life-time pension, this means that in addition to the huge money they’re making from the nation, they’ll be fed from the nation’s purse for the rest of their lives, all four of these men. Once you become any of these, you won’t ever have cause to worry about money. Yet there are more hardworking pensioners who have not received a kobo in graduate for their years of service to the nation.

In the end, majority of the Senators, rightly in my opinion, voted in support of the retention of this proviso, and it remains.

Before you join the crowd with public shouts of protest and online petitions through the web social networks, please try to understand the issue and don’t just be part of the bandwagon.

I am not in support of Yerima or his seemingly peculiar perspective to marriage, what I just seek for is a decent understanding of the matter at hand.

I hope I have been able to not confuse you.

Do you think I’m wrong? Do you have a question? Do you have a dissenting opinion? Do you think there are issues I ignored in this article? Do you have any correction to make? I expect you do. Please let us know in the comment section below and you’ll be responded to immediately.

Read, comment, share
I’m Saiddigge.

8 thoughts on “My Take on This Child Bride Matter

  1. damilare oke July 21, 2013 at 7:00 am Reply

    Well I beg to agree with u not on everything though… But u are still looking at this issue technically which is good. However, u and I know that there can never be any justification for child marriage. It is against, morality, religion, social and every other norms. Someone like me I’ve left the provision of that law (which may render one myopic) and I now look at the issue holistically, from the general point of view, what impact that bill and its so called sponsor will have on a child girl, and the evil intention of the ‘sponsor’ of that bill in making sure it is retained, his statement at the floor of the house and his later ‘reply to his enemy’ it is not gOod and the guy need to be curbed ASAP. He shld know that we nigerians do not take shit. However, the only thing I am afraid of is that we nigerians can talk, later we shut up and nothing will be done on the issue. Saheed whether we like it or not that bill will have effect on child marriage in nigeria. If not, yerima will not want to die at the floor of the house just to see it passed and retained. When u know that marriage or no marriage ur bride might still be regarded as a child if she is under 18, you may not want to take her in yet, you will chill until she is matured enough to take responsibility of being an adult. This is beyond yerima, this is for other goat that are in men skin that are also looking and thinking of forcing themselves on innocent and helpless children. She should still be in class, okay if we say they shld be allowed to be able to denounced their citizenship cos they are now adult, they should also be allowed to vote & b voted for(since they are now mothers & grandmothers at d age of 13), be entitled to drivers licence & allowed to drive a car (at the age of 11). Imagine how many people will be killed on our road), they shld also have capacity to enter any contract @11yrs yrs, they shld be tried at d court as an adult @5yrs?. All d same you’ve got a good write up there keep it up(y)

    • Kamil Alebiosu July 21, 2013 at 10:47 am Reply

      You are right Oke on general principle, but this particular furore is just about renouncing citizenship and the protests and petition signing should be channel into the CRA strengthening as this is what will prohibit child marriage and not the deletion of this clause as the retention or deletion of this clause has nothing to do with child marriage
      A lot of people like Yerima are the ones trying to give islam a bad image. But what I’d like to add about Yerima is than in a true Sharia compliant state, Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima would have been amputated on Corruption grounds but we are in Nigeria where we leave the root cause and attack mundane issue
      As for whether I support the removal or retention of the clause, I’m indifferent all I desire is proper and effective governance and making and strengthen the laws of the land to guarantee that.
      Corruption still reign supreme, inSecurity is still theRe, we are still battling with power problem and the senate and house of rep heads want to receive pension for a post that has no limit to number of terms!!!

      • Gabi July 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm

        one of the points u make is that, later on the child can decide not to go on with the marriage. Have u forgotten an addage that says a knife cuts the hand of child, and we throw the knife away, has the knife not done the evil deed? secondly u said nobody is being force, giving an under age girl in marriage does that serve as the best interest of the child. What choice did the child have when her fundation had already be ruin? what is bad is bad there is no points defending it.

      • saiddigge July 21, 2013 at 6:29 pm

        Gaby, I am not defending anything

      • saiddigge July 23, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        #gbamest! Hehehe

    • saiddigge July 21, 2013 at 6:25 pm Reply

      1. It’s not a bill to be passed into a law, it’s a constitution review, there’s no sponsor.

      2. I do not see it having any significant impact on the child, or on the matter of child marriage in general, except maybe where revocation of citizenship is concerned.

      3. The other situations you mentioned, they will not apply because the presumption of full age with a married female applies ONLY to Section 29 and nothing else.

      Thanks for your comments

  2. Efunkoya Abiodun July 22, 2013 at 9:11 am Reply

    As a matter of fact, like a sayings dat its d devil dat know how to quote d bible most, thou dey quote correctly but diverse d meaning. This is what I notice in this Sentor’s case. He know the law, and he knows dat its a good one but bcos of his selfish intrest, he gave it another entire meaning. Anyway dats not d issue, to. Me since that as become their decission, then I will leave this quote ” 13……if she can marry, then she can vote “.

  3. Leczee July 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm Reply

    Maybe we ought to face more pressing issues, least of which is the child bride thing. To be factual, this culture is prevalent in cultures where they find nothing wrong with it. These people accept it as a culture and thus embrace it. Maybe we also need to consider that these girls have no other future apart from those their parents have planned. Here in the south 13 year olds get pregnant and are pushed to live with the men responsible as wives and most of us see nothing wrong with that. How can you stop children being turned to brides when most of them want it anyway. We cant fight such with all this raves and rants directed at nobody in particular. The best thing in my own opinion is to enlighten the victims as to the alternative future they can have. Yet these so called future is practically non existent in this country. We should address issues of incessant strikes, unemployment, poverty, insecurity etc. Then a child would find it only proper to choose a brighter future pursuing a career over warming beds and making children.

    NB: The clause has little or no implication on the issue of marrying children. It only gives married non-adult a right deemed necessary. Why it is necessary is not important since it encourages nothing in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 268 other followers

%d bloggers like this: