The Senate was right: A 'married woman' is of 'full age'!

By Eze Eluchie

The seeming uproar against the vote by the Nigerian Senate to retain the constitutional provision which accords a 'married woman' the rights and privileges of a 'Nigerian of full age', is as astonishing as it is diversionary.

It is preposterous to suggest that a married woman, who is deemed capable of consummating her marriage, enjoying the various privileges of marriage accorded under our laws and has the potential of bringing forth new life, is not of full age.

The ideal position for those worried about the Senate vote, should have been to insist on a minimum age for marriage - and not to seek a constitutional review to deny a married woman the right of being deemed of 'full age'!

The Nigerian Senate was right to have rejected the alteration.

The reasons given by the Senate for which it rejected the alteration is, however, most dubious.

In the course of the Nigerian Senate's session debating the issue, a Senator and former Governor of Zamfara State (Mr. Ahmed Sani Yerima), who has the double sinister distinction of initiating the application of a flawed form of Shari'a laws as State law in Nigeria and a penchant to use the garb of Islam to mask his pedophilic inclinations (he infamously paid an incredulous huge dowry to marry an under-14 year old girl), flew the 'religion flag' as justification for the retention of Section 29(4){b} of the 1999 Constitution - The section in contention provides that a 'married woman' qualifies as a Nigerian of 'full age' for purposes of renunciation of citizenship or otherwise. The issues at stake had been whether a minor who was married was a person of 'full age'

With regards to the purported marriage of Prophet Mohammed (sallallahu alaihi wasallam - peace be upon him) to then 6-year old Aisha bin Abibakr (umm al-mu'minin - mother of the believers), a marriage which was consummated when Aisha was 9-years old, there may be the need to either distinguish the cultural practices in ancient Arabia from  Islamic injunctions or insist that religious practices must conform with the dictates of modernity.

Let energies be focused on real issues (in this instance, ensuring an acceptable minimum age for marriage) and not chase improbable shadows as the present campaign of calumny being waged against the Senate of the Federal Republic over a vote which is on all fours with good reason and reality, is unfortunate. It presents some elements of the Nigerian civil society as being too eager to lampoon the system, without any just cause.

If the unfounded attacks on the upper Legislative chamber over this present issue continues, credibility will be lost by those who engage in such despicable conduct. Our Legislators (and the entire system for that matter) have gross issues, let constructive criticism be reserved for such instances. Not this episode!

Some civil society organizations are understandably making hue and cry over the instant Senate vote with a view to impress their foreign funders - do not worry so much, the donor agencies already understand the realities highlighted in this post. Get back to work, more issues of national import are afoot.

As further evidence that our contraption is in dire need of renegotiation and restructuring, one is appalled by the inelegant draftsmanship which went into producing a most flawed Constitution of doubtful veracity as evidenced by the provisions of the entirety of Section 29 of the Constitution.

Picture: Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima who infamously married an under aged Egyptian bride and successfully led the campaign for the retention of Section 29(4){b}of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. This character, whilst helping himself to millions of dollars in public funds as Governor also presided over the amputation of limbs of ;petty thieves' under a skewed application of Shari'a (Islamic) laws in Zamfara State.

As Justice is laid to rest.

By Eze Eluchie

A few days back, on the 30th of June 2013 to be precise, I had, on my Facebook page, posed a query concerning the likelihood of the United States losing the ‘moral war’ as a result of some judicial decisions emanating from its courts. For that innocuous query, I had received written insults and threats from some erstwhile colleagues at an ivy league American Law School.

Today, with the acquittal of a man who cold-bloodedly murdered a young black man, whose only sin was taking a walk, one can confirm that the US system seems to have given up on the moral war.

Some of the laws prevailing in the United States are so anachronistic to reason and justice that Justice, at times, seems to have taken leave from the US system.

It is instructive to note that the various ‘civil society organizations’ which also enjoy being described as ‘international human right activists/organizations’ who are quick to castigate and condemn justice, social and political system in other climes (particularly in countries derisively termed ‘low and middle income countries’) will hide under a cloud of sheepish silence in the face of the continuing infamy.

Rest in peace, Justice;

Rest in peace, Trayvon Martins.


Picture: Trayvon Martin

Has the laureate been bought?

By Eze Eluchie

Globally, there are best practices and acceptable standards of conduct in all spheres of human endeavor, be it wars/conflicts, medical procedures, impartation of knowledge, for whatsoever. Even for social critics.

In the area of social criticism, one acceptable no-go area, globally, is to refrain from attacks on the family of public office holders. This is for the obvious reason that the issue remains the office holder and not his/her family. The presence in the public domain of the spouse and or children of a public office holder is solely on account of the principal office holder. So 'attacks' should always be on point, on the public office holder and not his/her appendages.

This is moreso in an environment, such as ours, where the families of public office holders at all strata of government help themselves to whatsoever they can lay hands on, at will. The spouse and family of Local Council Chairpersons help themselves to the trappings of office in their areas of authority, just as those of State Governors do at the State level and obviously at the Federal level.

In the course of a renegotiation and restructuring of our contraption, which I have persistently advocated for, this national folly of ours will certainly be addressed. Partisan attacks on the spouse of one public office holder certainly do not address the decay.

It is permissible, in keeping with global best practices, to criticize and lampoon public office holders at will, but certainly not their families.

On a personal level, I have at various times, as appropriate (in my reckoning), had cause to use unflattering adjectives to describe various public office holders, inclusive of President Jonathan - a practice that will continue as long as the need for such arises. I have in all, always kept within the 'rules' and spared their home-front.

It is in the light of the foregoing that the recent descent into the abyss of pedestrian abuse by Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, of the spouse of President Jonathan is really, really quite unfortunate.

Having observed the rather unbecoming haste at virulent and vociferous defense of Chibuike Amaechi ever since the "3rd Port Harcourt Festival of Books" (2011) and the campaigns towards the city's bid as the "World Book Capital for 2014" both financed by Amaechi and chaired by Soyinka, one is left wondering if anything untoward has transpired?

NB: The despicable violent attack on the Rivers State House of Assembly which Soyinka sought to condone:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zM9P9nxNMA8 

 http://tribune.com.ng/news2013/index.php/en/component/k2/item/16453-rivers-assembly-fracas-how-it-all-started.html

Picture: Embattled Governor Chibuike Amaechi and Professor Wole Soyinka