Senate will reconsider resolution on child marriage – Mark

President of the Senate, David Mark, has promised that the Senate will revisit its decision to amend  Section 29(4)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, which defines the full age of a woman seeking to renounce her citizenship.

The Senate Committee on Constitution Review led by Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, had recommended that sub-section 4b be deleted because it was “discriminatory.” It   suggested that a woman of any age, once married, was an adult.

Although Section 29 deals with the right of citizens to renounce their citizenship  and subsection 4 defines the age at which a citizen could do so, a religious connotation brought in by Senator Ahmed Yerima swayed  Senators’  votes to retain the clause.
The Senate had initially voted to delete it as recommended by the committee, but had to retake its  voting after  Yerima and a few others protested.

While receiving a Non-Governmental Organisation, Gender and Constitutional Reform Network, in the Senate on Wednesday, Mark admitted that   religious sentiment  played a role in the final outcome of the voting on the clause.
He however noted that the public misunderstood the Senate in not recognising the fact that its members had actually proposed to delete the sub-section, without any prompting from  the public.
Mark assured the visitors that  the Senate was  prepared to revisit the clause, but  pointed out that  the public needed  to be better educated on the subject.

He said, “I want to appeal to all Nigerians that now that we know that this is not receiving the acceptance of majority of Nigerians and people are getting educated, that there is no religious connotation, there is no reason why we cannot revisit it. The important thing is that if we take  a step, which is wrong, we can retrace it.

“I think the problem is not whether we can still revisit Section 29 (4b) or not, that is not the issue; it is whether we can get the number of votes  to be able to delete it. With all due respect, the entire Senate is being castigated.
“There was and there is still a big misunderstanding of what the Senate is trying to do. We are on the side of the people. That was why we put it that we should delete it;  that is what the people want. We,  in fact,  were the first  to take the step in the direction of deleting it. It didn’t go through because of other tangential issues that were brought  to the floor of the Senate that are totally inconsequential and unconnected.

“When we voted at first,  we had 85 votes and  we were   101 during plenary. Eighty five  voted, and about six abstained. There was hardly any dissenting voice. But once it got mixed up with so many other issues, we couldn’t get the 85 anymore. But  I think the castigation outside is done out of misunderstanding by the general public.

“But a religious connotation was brought into it, it became a very sensitive issue. You must agree with me that in this country, we try as much as possible  not to bring in issues that involve faith to  this chamber.
“I think the bottom line is when people get sufficiently educated, we can do a rethink and if the Senate agrees, we can then  go back and see whether we can get the required number once more, because that is the solution.

via punch

Share on Google Plus
    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment


Post a Comment