By UCHE ANICHEKWU

For about two weeks now, the nation has been caught in another hysteria. At the centre of it is a phantom “Child Marriage Bill” supposedly passed by the Senate. Like most matters at the heart of many national frenzies and umbrages in the past, this one too turned out to be another bout of ignorance, mischief, hypocrisy, and professional ineptitude in defence of a false alarm.

Indeed, the penchant of some of us for the bandwagon often leaves us too gullible. It can only compare to that of the Roman plebians in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” who are easily swayed into rampage. Take for instance the encounter of the Roman mob with a man named Cinna. In response to their numerous questions, he answers, “Truly, my name is Cinna”.

“Tear him to pieces; he is a conspirator”, one of them yells. “I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet,” he cries out. Not in the mood to reason, another member of the mob insists “Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses”.     Even when he pleads that “I am not Cinna the conspirator”, another citizen insists that “It is no matter, his name’s Cinna”. The poor man is lynched for Caesar’s death he knows nothing about.

In real life, the Romans’ fondness for entertainment was so intense that the popularity of successive emperors depended greatly on their ability to stage violent entertainments. Bloody combats in the amphitheatres by gladiators were the opium of the masses. The salutation “Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant” (Hail, Emperor, those who are about to die salute you) as elaborated in Suetonius’ work, “De Vita Caesarum” (The Life of the Caesars), leaves no one in doubt that the amphitheatre was a abattoir. But it didn’t matter to the Romans. The bloodier the merrier- so long as they got entertained. Likewise, the way some of us willfully promote lies and ignorance, it does not seem people give a damn whose character is assassinated.

However, after reading the comments of a former Minister, Mrs. Oby Ezekwesili when the Gender and Constitution Reform Network (GECORN) visited the Senate President, Senator David Mark, one cannot but excuse the masses. She said: “Our society is yet rudimentary in people completely following issues of legislation, issues of the constitution. And so many people assumed that there was some new Bill that was being discussed in the Senate where the Senators were given the right to marry under-aged children. It wasn’t the case.”

Nevertheless, the same cannot be said of those who ought to know better, but went ahead to willfully put events in the Senate concerning Section 29 of the Constitution out of context. One of such opprobrious comments was an editorial by one of Nigeria’s leading national dailies entitled “Shameless Senate” published on Wednesday, June 22, 2013.

The editorial reads in part: “Under Section 29 (4a and 4b) of the Constitution, a woman shall not be qualified for marriage until she is 18 years of age.” This is certainly not what that part of the Constitution talks about. It then goes further to state that   “The Senate, on Wednesday, proposed to change that provision to ‘a woman is deemed to be of full age once she is married’, irrespective of the age she did so.” This too is false and fallacious.

In her widely published piece which gives graphic details of the sad impacts of underage marriage on Northern Nigeria, Maryam Uwais, a rights activist and wife of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria says: “It should be pointed out, however, that several media reports on the constitutional review debate at the Senate give the impression that underage marriage has been endorsed by the Senate Chambers.

Facts are that S.29 of the 1979 Constitution permits a Nigerian citizen of ‘full age’ to renounce his or her citizenship by declaration in a prescribed manner, for which purpose ‘full age’ was stated to be 18 years and above. The subsection also provides that, ‘any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age’. In its current efforts to review the Constitution, the Senate Committee had determined that the particular subsection should be deleted, basically because citizenship has no bearing on gender, as for example, voting, the right to drive a car, possess a weapon or such similar social interactions that are evolving or are germane to a democratic Nation.”

Indeed, Section 29 Subsection 1 provides that “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.” Subsection 4, which is the bone of contention, provides that

“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 Constitution is specific as to the ONLY purpose Subsection 4(b) can serve- that is strictly for the purposes of subsection 1 or renunciation of citizenship.

This fact is supported by the position paper presented by GECORN (comprising people like Mrs. Oby Ezekwesili, Iyom Josephine Anenih, Mrs Maryam Uwais, and Minister of Women Affairs, Hajia Zainab Maina) during the said visit to the Senate President while the matter raged. It reads in part: “At the moment of birth, the first gift every Nigerian receives from the state is citizenship.

To protect this sacred gift of citizenship, we advocate for the deletion of section 29 (4) (b) of the 1999 Constitution. It is the desire of all Nigerians, who treasure our citizenship, to remove this provision that provides that young Nigerian girls, who are not old enough to vote or to obtain a driver’s licence, are somehow old enough to renounce their citizenship… Citizenship is and must remain gender-neutral and safeguarded from any cultural, religious or social interpretations or connotations.”

Although the Senate’s efforts at removing this subsection unfortunately failed, it deserves some credit for proposing the removal. Ironically, the recommendation to delete it did not come from the hordes of “activists” seeking to become heroes of a phantom campaign. Yes, the Senate, through the Ekweremadu Committee, fished out this subsection that has been in the Constitution since 1979 by itself and slated it for deletion.

The Deputy President of the Senate who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitution Review left no one in doubt of rationale. He said: “Section 29(4)(b) was recommended for deletion because the Committee considered it discriminatory. Section 29(4)(a) has already defined “full age” for purposes of citizenship renunciation as age eighteen and above. We considered it gender discriminatory and imbalance to place the man and woman on different scales in matters of citizenship renunciation…. As such, it was recommended for deletion, but could not pass eventually.”

In essence, sad as it were that Section 29(4)(b) could not be deleted, it does not give any one any legal backing to marry a girl of less than 18 years as if offends the provisions of the Child Rights Act (also passed by the much profaned National Assembly). The current “activism” should instead be directed at getting States that are yet to domesticate the Child Rights Act to do so.

Anichukwu is Special Adviser Media to the Deputy Senate President