Experts have called for the amendment of some laws in the country. They made the call at the roundtable on “gender and state of origin rights in Nigeria” organised by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) at the Supreme Court Complex, Abuja.
NIALS Director-General, Prof. Epiphany Azinge (SAN) said the event was to sensitise people on issues on gender and state of origin rights, some of which could be the basis for constitution amendment.
Azinge said: “ If you look at the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly, you will observe that the basis for Nigerian citizenship are embodied in Chapter 3.
Azinge said there must be need to build a strong nation if we begin to look at these things and that the outcome would be forwarded to the appropriate agencies of the government where they would assist in policy formulation, distillation and, ultimately, assist the lawmakers in amending the constitution for the overall interest of every Nigerian.
Chairman of the occasion, Prof. Charles Ilegbune (SAN), noted that the status of women had remained a serious subject of discourse since creation. He said, In the Bible, God made woman after man. God made the woman from the flesh and bones of man. It was woman who cornered or ambushed man to disobey God’s first law. These accounts are very interesting because they set the tone for the position of women, which obviously raised the following questions: Is it to be intended that she is a mere companion of man, is she inferior to man etc?
He said the problem of the position of women had been recurring everywhere.
The special guest of honour and chairman, Federal Character Commission, Prof. Shuaibu Oba Abdulraheem, said we might not need to amend our laws before we could achieve some of these objectives. He said there was the case of a lawyer from Kano State, whose wife was from Benue State, that the woman voluntarily took the citizenship of her husband’s local government area and that was the end of the whole thing, that settled the indigenship problem there. Abdulraheem noted voluntarily you can become a local government indigene. Said he: “ A woman, who marries shall have the freedom to choose to remain or change to the local government of her husband, if you want to stay with your husband, do so immediately after marriage. There shall be no room for forum shopping.
Setting the tone for the discourse, the keynote speaker and former president of Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Bodunrin Daudu (SAN) went down memory lane, tracing the global perspective of history of women’s rights and narrowed it down to Nigerian experience. He eventually traced same to the Beijing Declaration of Affirmative Action
He said: “From the foregoing, even though the Beijing Declaration advocate a 30 per cent affirmative action for women vis a vis political and elective offices, i.e. that one-third of such offices should be statutorily reserved for women; the thrust of the above–quoted declaration seeks the economic and educational empowerment of women. That is how it should be and that I support. I will try to demonstrate this hypothesis in the following manner.
“Following the return from Benjing, a massive campaign was undertaken by enlightened and economically advantaged women led by the then first Lady, Mrs. Maryam Abacha seeking the escalation in the political empowerment of women. This has been carried on by successive First Ladies, who admittedly wield substantial influence in the scheme of governance and have used this vantage position to advance the cause of women participation in politics.
“It must be noted that despite other designed flaws in the scheme of governance, to its credit, the Jonathan Administration has the largest ratio of women to men in the Federal Executive Council. But that is as far it goes; we are, of course, seriously concerned with the electability of women and their role in partisan politics.
“The veritable nature of partisan politics is that elective offices cannot be gifted as ministerial and other appointments. Elective offices have one rule for both men and women and it is that it is a popularity contest for the choice of the people by the people. Affirmative action, therefore, in such circumstances will negate the very principles of democracy i.e. free choice. Where does this leave the women, who clearly and indisputably have not made a good showing in the arena of partisan politics? This brings us to the usual suspects for this lapse which includes internal democracy or what I call ‘the Rules of Engagement in political parties. It is not a secret that, in virtually all democracies political parties and politicians have sponsors, who wield considerable influence in what goes on in the political stratosphere.
“For example, the National Rifle Association in the US has a strong hold on virtually every Republican politician. Same as Corporate Nigeria versus Nigerian politics. What, therefore is the ratio of women to men in the world of high roller economic empowerment for the acquisition of elective offices? The answer is that compared to men, women’s financial muscle is infinitesimal. Without financial firepower, it is impossible for women to have any considerable influence in elective politics. The blame therefore should not be put solely on labels such as ‘patriarchy, discriminatory customs, lack of Affirmative Action plan, and inadequate knowledge by women of the unwritten rules of the game of politics and religious doctrines.
I strongly believe women should first seek the kingdom of educational and economic empowerment before seeking a full stake in the political kingdom. Undeniably, men already have an advantageous head-star but the gap can with the right strategy be abridged within the confines of the constrains mentioned above if only the right strategy can be evolved. Who are those to evolve this strategy? The answer is the women, of course, who are or will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Where are the women who in the past 30 years have been ‘successful’ in politics? In what way have the first Ladies, deputy governors, ministers, senators elected reps, commissioners, the beneficiaries of high political offices, other elected officials (all of who are women) ploughed back their experience and resources into the advancement of the progress of women in politics? If there is any re-investment of the said wherewithal of politics back to aspiring female politicians then it is not noticeable. In truth, there is an established school of thought that postulates that women are their own worst enemies. There have been situations where women stoutly refuse to advance the political progress of their fellow women for reasons which are usually unclear to men,
“These, in my humble view, are factor that cannot be legislated upon. Clearly, the thrust or direction of Nigerian Politics, which is primarily for a majority, the advancement of the economic livelihood and thereby a matter of survival (though not commendable) makes the engagement in the Nigerian brand of partisan politics, repugnant to the physiological and psychological make-up of women. I know that women are not violent by nature; rather they are the victims of violence. In Nigeria, some Men believe, though highly detestable, that violence, thuggery and other reprehensible measures are acceptable in the quest for elective office. It is therefore very difficult for a husband or a son to picture his mother or wife in this motley crowd plotting the quantum of evil at times needed to aspire to elective office.
The trajectory for optimum women participation in politics lies in a care build-up, in working assiduously to achieve the action plans of the Beijing Declaration as reproduced above, which, in my view, which in my view, correctly identifies the pursuit of economic power as a prerequisite to the acquisition of political power. Power is taken and not given. Women, therefore, must realise that to navigate the murky waters of partisan politics require mush more than lofty principles and occasional grandstanding. The problem therefore dose not lie in the paucity of the legal or constitutional framework for the achievement or advancement of Women in politics. It lies as articulated in the foregoing, in the conscious appreciation of the obvious militating factors and the assiduous working towards the surmounting of same.
On International citizenship and state of origin rights in Nigeria, Daudu said:
“There is, no doubt, that the clearest example of the marginalisation of a Nigerian citizen in his own country is seen in the indigene-settler dichotomy. This happens to people who have migrated from their own locations and chosen to live elsewhere within the country. In most cases, they have assimilated the culture, language, religion of their hosts, but are still referred to as ‘strangers’ and subjected to discriminatory treatment by their hosts. In most cases, this discrimination becomes institutionalised and is carried on or executed by local governments and in some cases State Government. This unjust state of affairs usually leads at some point to communal friction and mayhem occasioning loss of lives and property valued at billions of Naira. Such cries have been seen in Jos, Zangon – Kataf, Nassarawa State, Taraba State and in a host of other areas in the country. A good starting point is to take Jos crises as an example and appraise it from the view point of the dispassionate observer.
“At first, the “Jos crisis”, as Nigerian and foreign media have named it, seems complex and confusing. It is, however, possible to untangle the reasons for this explosion of violence that took place on November 27 and 28 2008 in the capital of Plateau State, North of Nigeria. Early December 2008, interviewed by RFI, Daniel C. Bach said the main cause of these clashes is to be found in the unequal right to “indigeniety” between the Beroms and Hausas in Plateau State. The distinction between “indigenes” and “allogenes”, i.e. between locals and immigrants, establishes what amounts to a “right of blood”. For inhabitants of Jos like the Beroms and others, a certificate of indigeniety gives them privileged access to scholarships, public employment and land. A solution to the problem would be, according to Bach, to redefine this right so as to identify all individuals, whatever their background, as Nigerian citizens”.
It is suggested by Maud Gaugin (2009) (though I disagree) that ‘In fact, the origin of this inequity lies beyond the scope of this constitutional inequality’. I am of the view that if this imbalance is addressed through the constitution making process that Nigeria will be better for it and the problem will not disappear. The Jos Crisis brings to the fore the question of the rights of a Nigerian in his own country. The problem as shown above is that settlers in Jos are not regarded as indigenes and they therefore are accorded secondary rights. Thus, there exist disparate access to rights and privileges such as the acquisition of land, payment of taxes, education advancement for children, etc. The settler usually gets discriminatory treatment. He cannot for example aspire to political leadership in the area where he lives. In short, he is a second class citizen in his country. Millions of Nigerians have been exposed to this treatment in a number of States in this country. The Jos crisis demonstrates how the minority question, ethnic and religious discrimination, indigeneship and settler crisis can stultify Nigeria’s democracy. I propounded the solution thus:
“The panacea lies in Nigerianising everybody. That is there should be no indigene or non-indigene if you have elected to live among any ethnic group in Nigeria for an agreed number of years and you demonstrate a desire to continue to live there, then such a person should be qualified to append as his Local government and state such place of his domicile”
It is, therefore, clear that the said seeming interminable crisis masquerading as religious upheavals are actually manifestation of ethnic misgivings in one form or the other. This is because the distinction between ‘hosts’ and ‘settlers’ goes against the reality of existing patterns of social relations and national integration.. it is also clear that the endless internecine wars in all parts of the country predicated upon ethnic differences need to be confronted, head-on, tackled and subdued. Sequel to the foregoing, the concept of citizenship at State Level need to be reconstructed such that prominence is accorded to residence and not to indignity or state of origin. The Nigerian Citizenry should be based on Residency as opposed to State of Origin or indigene ship. The resultant effect is that every Nigerian will have the confidence and the right to reside anywhere in Nigeria and carry on his business without any molestation or hindrance. (see NBA report on citizenship-2009) it is humbly suggested that a new section 32 of the 1999 Constitution should be put in place, while the existing section 32 will become section 33 to address the problems expressed above and provide hope for Nigerians.
That the proposed section 32 should read thus:
“Any Nigerian who has lived in or within a community in Nigeria for a continuous period of not less than 10 years, shall have the same rights and privileges of any Nigerian born in that community or whose pedigree is attached to that community: Provided that such Nigerian citizen shall not claim two communities as his residence or abode for the purposes of determining his local community. This constitutional intervention will crate a level playing field and the foundation will be laid where no Nigerian will feel marginalised in his own country.
