{"id":7005,"date":"2013-07-24T03:27:47","date_gmt":"2013-07-24T03:27:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/disnaija.com\/nigerian-newspapers\/we-didnt-vote-on-marriage-age-says-senate\/"},"modified":"2013-07-24T03:27:47","modified_gmt":"2013-07-24T03:27:47","slug":"we-didnt-vote-on-marriage-age-says-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disnaija.com\/we-didnt-vote-on-marriage-age-says-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"We didn\u2019t vote on marriage age, says Senate"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Overwhelmed by public reaction, the Senate yesterday said its members did not vote on Marriage Age.<\/p>\n

It said the Child’s Right Act is still intact and the lawful age of marriage is 18years.<\/p>\n

The Senate made the clarifications in a special note in Abuja by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Information, Media and Public Affairs, Senator Enyinaya Abaribe.<\/p>\n

The note said: \u201cFor 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. They also did not vote to introduce any new law on underage marriage.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe senators only voted to amend some clauses in the articles that were already in the constitution. What is important is for the issue to be put in its proper perspective.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis clarification has become necessary because of the wilful and deliberate act to distort and misinform the general public on what was never discussed nor contemplated by the distinguished senators.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt no time was marriage as a section of the constitution discussed or voted for.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Senate gave details on what transpired at its plenary last week during the consideration of proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution.<\/p>\n

The Senate said: \u201cIt is pertinent for the public to know that the section up for amendment had to do with persons qualified to renounce Nigerian citizenship.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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): \u2018Any 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): \u2018For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, (a) ‘full age’ means the age of 18 years and above; (b) ‘any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age’<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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 \u2018woman\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cSenators therefore voted earlier to expunge that sub section and it scaled through by 75 votes. Note that under the constitution, to amend any clause you will need 2\/3 of the members of the Senate, which translates to 73 votes.<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cRevisiting 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore, a fresh vote was called and even though those who wanted that section 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cHad voting in constitutional amendment not been based on the mandatory two-third or (73) votes of senators at the sitting, perhaps the issue would have 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Senate insisted that by the provision of The Child Rights Act, the lawful marriage age in the country is still 18 years.<\/p>\n

It said: \u201cThe National Assembly in 2003 had passed \u2018The Child Rights Act\u2019 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.”<\/p>\n

22. 1. “No parent, guardian or any other person shall betroth a child to any person.”<\/p>\n

2. A betrothal in contravention of subsection (1) of this section is null and void.<\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore under the Childs Right Act, the lawful age of marriage is 18 years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

————————————————————————————————————————-
Posted in Nigerian Newspapers. <\/a>A DisNaija.Com<\/a> network.<\/p>\n

Source: The Nation Newspaper<\/p>\n

DisNaija.Com<\/b> publishes regular posts on Nigeria News,<\/a> Nigerian Newspapers,<\/a> Online Nigeria Gist.<\/a><\/p>\n

Follow us on Twitter<\/a> and Facebook<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Nigerian Newspapers<\/a>
\n
\nFollow @Dis_Naija<\/a>
\n