Making Sense of the Child Marriage Issue Over the last two weeks, the major political focus

has been on the legislature and the child marriage issue. A lot of opinions have been raised concerning the morality of the decision made by the National Assembly to keep Section 29 (4)b in the constitution, especially with regards to child marriage. In the midst of all the uproar, it is important to analyse this section of contention with reference to the original section in order to get an objective and holistic perspective of this child marriage debate. The S.29 section states that: S.29: (1) 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. (2) The president shall cause the declaration made under subsection(1) of this section to be registered, and upon such registration, the person who made the declaration shall cease to be a citizen of Nigeria. (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 intent of this law is to guard around the rules pertaining to citizenship rights and the determination of the age at which a woman could denounce her citizenship.. In simple terms, it states that any individual of full age has the right to renounce his/her Nigerian citizenship. It defines full age as 18 and above. However, the 29(4)b part adds an exception to that: full age is defined by marriage status in this case. What this clause means is that she does not have to be 18 years old as is required in section 29 (4) (a) so long as she is married. This gives any married underage girl the chance to renounce their Nigerian citizenship. This gives them the freedom to renounce their citizenship and seek freedom elsewhere. The law was created to be a reprieve for the underage girls who wanted out of their marriage. In spite of its good intentions, this clause is severely flawed. For one, it implicitly accepts that child marriage is permitted. Yerima caught on that and tied it into his rights as a Muslim man. The clause had been removed and the Senate was to proceed when Yerima interjected that the clause should be restored. He whipped up Islamic sentiment amongst his fellow Muslim senators and persuaded majority of them to vote in favor of the retention of a clause, the removal of which according to him would tamper with their right to practice Islam. His influence was so strong that even two Muslim female senators opted to abstain from voting rather than take a position against what they considered to be a religious issue. The clause was never initially intended to pander to the religious idiosyncrasies of any individual. Simply put, this issue is not about religion. It just so happened that religion was used to manipulate the flawed clause. Yerimas manipulation raises a divisive debate on the legitimacy of child marriage. Does Nigeria frown against it in its entirety or does it leave room for individuals like Yerima to have their way with underage girls? Does the silence of the constitution

on child marriage then signify passive support? The one important implication is that it confirms that the Nigerian legal system recognizes that there are indeed situations when a child under 18 can be married. Laws generally exist through proscriptions, not through prescriptions. This means that the law usually operates by setting the boundaries of what to do and not dictating what is done within that boundary. So on the child marriage issue, the law would state You cannot marry anyone below the age of 18 rather than You can marry anyone above the age of 18. What then happens when the law fails to state such a prohibition? It implies a lack of restriction against marrying below the age of 18. The anger of the public at the Senate might be unjustly misdirected, but it does bring the child marriage debate to the forefront. The debate has raged on constantly on the radio, newspapers, television and Internet. Last week, in a meeting with the Senate President, the Minister of Women Affairs alongside Mrs. Oby Ezekwesili requested that the 29(4)a clause be removed. Also, Yerimas manipulation of the law also raises a significant implication. It implies that the Senators lack a circumspective knowledge of their laws. A holistic understanding of how the laws operate could have prevented the Lawmakers from yielding to Yerimas religious-fuelled demands. Some senators attempted to respond and exonerate themselves but interestingly several demonstrated that they had little knowledge of what they voted about and one was even reported to have apologized in a flurry of tears as he had to face the wrath of his constituents. These senators are paid a fortune to make laws that rightly govern the behavior of individuals in the nation. As such, their decisions have large and binding consequences on the lives of the citizens. Consequently, it is imperative that the Senators get more engaged on these issues of law formation. Moreover, they have to be prudent and circumspective with regards to constitutional amendments. z