Yerima and the child bride clause

Aliyu Musa

From the outset let me warn that my undertaking in this piece is not to attempt defending Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima; I am not a great fan of his. But I am mystified by the vociferousness the recent attempt at the upper house of the Nigerian parliament, Senate, to delete Section 29, Subsection 4b of the 1999 constitution of the country has generated. Although those opposed to expunging the clause have since had their way, it has left a trail of sensational, stereotypical campaigns deliberately putting the heat on Islam/Muslims.

Of all the arguments the most shocking bit is that most of those campaigning for or against the clause still do not know or pretend not to know exactly what it says. While many argue that by keeping it the Senators have directly validated child marriage the clause says otherwise. It actually states: ‘any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.’

The question one needs to ask is how does this clause append, with definitely finality, constitutional credence to child marriage? To back their point, those against the clause say it will encourage people to give or take out the hands of under age girls in marriage and, based on the constitutional backing it gives, regard and treat the minor as an adult of full age. Full age here means 18 years upwards.

On the other hand those throwing their full weight behind the clause, like Senator Yerima, insist that by the time a female is married she immediately assumes full responsibility as an adult, whether she is 18 years of age or less. Their position, they claim, is based on their understanding of and attempts to defend Islam. How this connects to Islam is what I am still struggling to understand, just as my confusion is compounded by those who see it their job to attack Islam on the basis of Senator Yerima’s position.

But what most of those at daggers drawn over the matter do not tell us or don’t even know is that the clause has very less to do with child marriage than it has with the right to renounce one’s citizenship of Nigeria. This should be more worrying because it shows the extremity of our ignorance or mischief or both. And like the Shariah drama at the onset of this millennium in which Senator Yerima was a principal performer the most ignorant are the most vocal.

There’s no denying that child marriage is a serious problem. But it still doesn’t warrant pointless attacks on Islam, as if it is not practised across board. But, again, as some friends have advised the blame should be put at Yerima’s doorstep because he wanted to use it as a means of appropriating himself cheap scores.

Yerima’s involvement notwithstanding, this issue has been over flogged for no other reasons than it negatively portrays Islam. When Yerima took out his 14 years old bride from Egypt a couple of years ago many saw it as an excuse to assault Islam. It was around the same time massive evidences of child sex abuse crimes that Catholic priests, nuns and members of Roman Catholic Orders carried out against children as young as three years in orphanages were uncovered. But Rights campaigners did not find similar vivacity to stage protests or marches as they did against Yerima’s marriage or as they are now doing.

The trouble with stereotypes is they do not allow anyone vending them to see beyond their own small spectrum. They are, to such peddlers, the only yardsticks by which the ‘other’ is judged and ‘otherness’ becomes a frame through which real issues are misconstrued and nonexistent ones are imagined.

A major downside of this for our society is it will continue to breed distrust and keep us as far apart from discourses that would promote our collective survival as possible. Otherwise, why are we not using the same vitality to compel the Senators to insert in our constitution clauses that would force governments to provide certain minimum welfare packages for children or revamp public schools to enable children of the poor acquire education? Why are we not asking questions about our collapsed roads, decaying hospitals, epileptic power supply in the face of mounting tariffs and several other inadequacies that our constitution does not and may never address?

Ethnic tension is among the biggest challenges we face and it is such a big issue because the constitution does not clearly define who an indigene is. Yet, we pretend it is not a significant dispute deserving the attention of a bunch of overpaid Senators. So the constitution is silent on it and we let it be. Are we not missing our priorities?