Following the resolution of the National Assembly with respect to section 29 (4) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), I have carefully examined the provision once more to enable me understand the real issue in controversy and then make my own contribution.
It is important to state here that the bone of contention is section 29 (4)(b) of the Constitution. This section is not new and has been an existing provision in the 1999 Constitution before the amendments. The relevant provision for the purposes of this write up is Section 29(1) & (4) (a) & (b). These provide as follows:
(1) “Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for renunciation.
(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 basic question that calls for consideration here is: what is the import of Section 29(4)(b) of the Constitution?
Before considering the above question, it is necessary to consider the Child Rights Act (CRA) 2003. Note that the CRA was a domestication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The relevant sections here are sections 21, 23 and 277 which provide as follows:
Section 21 – no person under the age of eighteen years is capable of contracting a valid marriage, and accordingly a marriage so contracted is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(1) “Any citizen of Nigeria of full age who wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for renunciation.
(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 basic question that calls for consideration here is: what is the import of Section 29(4)(b) of the Constitution?
Before considering the above question, it is necessary to consider the Child Rights Act (CRA) 2003. Note that the CRA was a domestication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The relevant sections here are sections 21, 23 and 277 which provide as follows:
Section 21 – no person under the age of eighteen years is capable of contracting a valid marriage, and accordingly a marriage so contracted is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Section 23 – a person (a). who marries a child (b). to whom a child is betrothed; or (c).who promotes the marriage of a child ; or (d). who betroths a child commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N500,000; or imprisonment for a term of five years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Having seen the above provisions, we will then go back to the issue for consideration in this article which is the import of section 29 (4) (b) of the Constitution.
This issue will be considered in two dimensions, the first is whether the provision of section 29(4) (b) of the 1999 Constitution allows child marriage. In my view the operative words in that section are “woman” and “married”.
Neither the Constitution nor the Interpretation Act defined these words. However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Marriage” as “the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex”.
Neither the Constitution nor the Interpretation Act defined these words. However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Marriage” as “the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex”.
It is important to note that the particular word used in the section of the Constitution in question is woman and not GIRL.
It is my humble view that the use of the word woman by the makers of the Constitution was deliberate.
It is my humble view that the use of the word woman by the makers of the Constitution was deliberate.
Section 277 of the Child Rights Act defines a child as a person who is under the age of 18 years while the age of majority is prescribed in the same section as the age of 18. The Constitution itself, under subsection 4(a) of the same Section described a person of full age to be a person who has attained the age of maturity. Simply put, a woman, that is, an adult female is one who has attained the age of majority. Conclusively, the ordinary and natural meaning of woman as used in section 29(4)(b) of the Constitution is one who has attained the age of 18 years.
I do not think that the said provision admits of child marriage as a girl child is not a woman and as such is incapable of contracting a valid marriage under Nigerian law.
I do not think that the said provision admits of child marriage as a girl child is not a woman and as such is incapable of contracting a valid marriage under Nigerian law.
If anything, the sub-section is merely repetitive of sub-section 4(a) of the same section and to that extent, it is a superfluous, totally irrelevant and inconsequential and ought to be expunged from the Constitution.
Another dimension to determine the issue as postulated above is to consider the effect of the combined reading of section 29 (1) & (4) holistically. In the case of the erudite jurists of the Court of Appeal dwelt heavily on the question of the interpretation of the Constitution and held that in interpreting a section of the Constitution, the entire section should be read as a whole for the purpose of understanding the necessary intendment of the Constitution.
The Constitution must be construed in such a way that it protects what it sets out to protect and guides what it sets out to guide.
A subsection of the Constitution shall not be construed in such a way that it makes nonsense of other provisions of the same section.
I therefore submit that construing subsection 4(b) of Section 29 to include a girl child is to make nonsense of subsection 4(a) which is gender insensitive and thus includes both men and women.
A subsection of the Constitution shall not be construed in such a way that it makes nonsense of other provisions of the same section.
I therefore submit that construing subsection 4(b) of Section 29 to include a girl child is to make nonsense of subsection 4(a) which is gender insensitive and thus includes both men and women.
It is also important to note that section 29(4) was made for the purposes of section 29(1) which provides for renunciation of citizenship by a Nigerian of full age.
It is not an avenue for any person who has breached the provisions of the CRA to legalize his criminal actions. The Constitution upholds the moral value of the people.
From the forgoing therefore, I will like to say that the provisions of Section 29(4) (b) of the Constitution is not inconsistent with the Child Rights Act 2003, and whether the said sub section is expunged from the Constitution or not it does not in any way admit of or support child marriage.
However, since the said sub section is found to be completely irrelevant, it is better that it is expunged so that it will not be misconstrued by some pedophiles who will want to hide under the Constitution to perpetrate their illicit act.
The C RA was passed into law by the National Assembly and it remains a god law. It is a shame that the same people who pass laws breach it with impunity and walk freely around the country.
The C RA was passed into law by the National Assembly and it remains a god law. It is a shame that the same people who pass laws breach it with impunity and walk freely around the country.
