#CHILDNOTBRIDE CAMPAIGN: MISGUIDED OR MISUNDERSTOOD?

This is just ridiculous!

The social media was agog with so much frenzy when news of what transpired in the Senate in the past week hit the media streets. I have received not less than 50 broadcasts on bbm from people claiming to be massively involved in the fight against the passage of a bill to legalize under-age marriage. I was shocked when I read most of these broadcasts and was greatly depressed because I realized that majority of us Nigerians are an ignorant lot!

If people spent half the time they do reading newspapers, listening to the news on the radio and watching news on TV or actually visiting google more often for current news headlines rather than reading gossip columns like Linda Ikeji's blog and other gossip media, they would be more informed. For Linda Ikeji's teeming fans, this is not a swipe at Linda Ikeji but a swipe at those of you who take her stories as the gospel truth. Y'all need to learn the difference between gossip and fact!

Contrary to what many people think as regards the issue, there wasn't an actual bill to legalize under-age marriage. What happened was during the on-going constitutional amendment carried on by the National Assembly, with specific regard to Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Senate Committee sought to amend the subsection stated copiously below.

Section 29 (1) provides thus;

"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"

Section 29 (4) further states thus;

"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." (Emphasis mine).

A probable but unwise interpretation of this subsection is that a girl who gets married at the age of 13 or less is of full age and can decide to change her citizenship regardless of her mental capacity. This was the bone of contention for the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee was of the opinion that the provision should be expunged because of this perceived ambiguity. This is where the problem started.

Senator Ahmed Yerima whom we all know as a "staunch" defender of Sharia Law swung into action saying that the section was against the tenets of Islam. I am no expert in Islamic affairs, but this in my opinion however, was no defense of Islam but the defense of his lecherous whims especially in the light of his condemnable marriage to a 13 year old Egyptian girl in 2009. His view is that once a girl is married, she has full mental capacity to renounce her citizenship and understand the implication thereof.

This, my friends, is a shitload of bollocks! I'll tell you why.

In all the hue and cry that followed, we all forgot something - and this is often the case when religion and emotions get involved in arguments - we skip the salient points. The subsection said "woman" and not "girl". The wording of the sub-section is clear and unambiguous. Except "Hon"Yerima and the other Senators who missed this are trying to tell me that the word "woman" is a synonym for "girl", what's all the fuss about?

For the "unlearned", any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings. Only when that fails, can we deem such a statute to be ambiguous before recourse can be had to the intent of the legislature when making the law or other methods of statutory interpretation.

Amazingly, Ahmed Yerima gathered a few followers with his warped sense of logic and when it came up for a second vote, though the majority of senators voted that the subsection be expunged, they couldn't get the required two-thirds majority to expunge as provided for by Section 9(2) of the constitution which states thus;

Section 9(2)  “An Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this Constitution… shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states.”

Therefore, in this regard, the majority of the Senate only failed to expunge the subsection because of the requirement of the above mentioned Section 9(2) which basically gave Yerima and his cohorts the power to hold the rest of the Senate to ransom. However, this attempt to expunge the subsection, though noble is misguided and highly unnecessary.

That being said, The Child Rights Act was passed into law in 2003 and Section 277 defines a child as anyone below 18 years of age. Also, Sections 21 and 22 of the Act effectively criminalizes child marriage and betrothal in Nigeria. What needs to be done is to push for The Child Rights Act to be domesticated in every one of the 36 states in Nigeria.

As at today, 12 states are yet to domesticate The Child Act and apart from Enugu State, the rest of them are states from the North. This in my opinion, is a deliberate ploy to undermine the efficacy of the Act.

Furthermore, any court that makes the mistake of towing the line of the thoughts of our obviously "unlearned" senators who sought to expunge the Section 29(4)(b) of the Constitution poses a serious threat to the applicability and enforceability to the Act as all enacted laws that are inconsistent with the constitution are void to the extent of their inconsistency because the Constitution is the grund norm of the nation and is supreme to any other law enacted. 

 Section 1(1) provides, “This Constitution and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

In addition to this, Section 1(3) provides, “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void."

For avid social media users, please be selective in the information that you consume and take as fact.

This is my two kobo on the issue.

Malcolm O. Ifi.

TRAFFIC ENFORCERS OR LEGITIMATE NUISANCES

There has been a very disturbing trend in state governance in recent times, especially in states who have adopted the pattern of aggressive revenue generation. Aggressive revenue generation in itself is not a bad thing; especially when it translates into infrastructural development.
However, what smears the whole process is the use of unbridled and unhinged touts to achieve the goal of aggressive taxation. The practice began with the Babatunde Raji Fashola administration. A stranger who drives into Lagos for the first is very likely to get snagged by one of the numerous touts wearing uniforms. From Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) to Anti-One Way, Zero Tolerance, Kick Against Indiscipline (KAI) and all other sorts of traffic enforcers, it is incontestable that some level of sanity has returned on our roads. The fear of hefty fines or car impounds has proved to be a deterrent to many erstwhile reckless motorists. However, tales abound of how these road traffic enforcers have converted their the legitimate offices into tools of extortion and in some cases, they have become probable causes of accidents on our roads. I have heard several stories of how the activities of certain over-zealous officials, LASTMA especially have been the cause of some very bad accidents which claimed lives. In Benin, following the foot steps of the ACN class captain, the comrade governor Adams Oshiomole introduced something similar; Edo State Traffic Management Authority (EDSTMA) they are called. There's no doubt that some sanity has returned to the roads too but my particular concern is the those who constitute these road traffic authorities. I was moved to write this at the behest of a doctor friend who experienced first hand, the extortionist ring these uniformed touts have become in Benin and everywhere they have sprang up so far. Here's his story: "I was driving around King's Square, very close to the House of Assembly last friday at about 4pm when a uniformed man jumped into my car and said, "Bros, drop something." "For what?" I asked, still shocked from the intrusion into my private space. I thought I was being robbed. The uniform he wore calmed me down sort of. "I am taking you to the office for forming double lane." He said. "How?" I asked, bamboozled. There was a terrible hold-up in progress as is often the case by this time of the day at Kings Square. I was firmly locked in between two cars on the right lane. My insistence generated an argument which attracted several of his colleagues. We both got out of the car and passersby and other motorists saw the situation and told these men I had done no wrong but all to no avail. My car key was seized and I was taken to their office and given a ticket which read "Illegal Parking" with an absurd fine of N23000!

I made some calls and met some UNIBEN old boys who worked at the office of the Ministry of Works where I was taken to. They intervened and the "ransom" was reduced to N8000. I couldn't believe that I was going to have to pay that ridiculous sum over trumped up accusations! Well, I did and got into my car and drove off straight to James Watt Road to buy tyres only to discover I had been robbed of my jack!

Once extorted and robbed, you kind of have the antidote or you become immune because you discover you know some people in the office to call next time. However, it is wrong and should stop so I want us to work together to put this menace under control. Thank you." I am very sure that after reading about his ordeal at the hand of these uniformed rogues, many of you have had similar experiences or even worse. It is sad that with Nigeria, there's always a loophole to exploit any installed measure to instill sanity in all works of life. Suggestions are welcome on how to curb the illegal activities of these uniformed nuisances. Malcolm O. Ifi.

RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY: A SHOW OF SHAME

Wonders they say shall never end. This couldn't be truer under the Nigerian political set-up. I had deliberately decided to stop writing anything with political undertones. Each time I put out an article out there complaining about something absurd in our political space, something new always seemed to come up to stun me and indeed millions of other Nigerians.

Makes me wonder if there's actually a monitoring spirit somewhere that eagerly waits for when Nigerians say "It can't get worse than this" or "Nothing about this country can ever surprise me again".

BOOOM!! Always wrong!

I am referring to the embarrassing mayhem that engulfed the Rivers State House of Assembly on the 9th of July which was spurred on by the audaciously stupendous move by five rogue legislators to impeach the current Speaker of the house without regard to due process.  

The genesis of all this is believed to be the festering differences between the Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi; and the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, his wife Patience and the Minister of State for Education, Chief Nyesom Wike, who is the principal figure in a plot to undermine the authority of the governor of Rivers State who is seen to be a potential threat to President Jonathan's second term candidacy.  

The long and drawn out battle has also seen the deeply troubled PDP attempt all manner of absurdities to remove Amaechi as the chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum despite a free and fair election in which he defeated Plateau State governor Jonah Jang clearly who is considered Mr. President's candidate.

Unfortunately, Mr. President has decided to keep mum on the subject rather than make a definitive statement, preferring to send his errand boys out to issue out vague statements as regards the crisis. This new crisis is the Rivers State House of Assembly could very well be the fallout of the President's visit to the state last week.

It is understood that the rogue five led by Evans Bipi, a former aide to the first lady and now a PDP legislator representing Ogu/Bolo constituency in River State stormed the premises with thugs who dislodged the sitting legislators, commenced impeachment proceedings against the current speaker, Otelemaba Amachree and illegally elected Evans Bipi as his replacement.  

However, the video that went viral yesterday is the response by another lawmaker, Chidi Lloyd who is believed to be one of Governor Rotimi Amaechi's loyalists. The video is one of the most blood-thirsty displays of violence and rascality I have ever seen, second only to the Aluu killings that happened last year.  

The "honourable" member clad in white caftan and red cap was seen clobbering one of the rogue five - his colleague, senselessly with the mace until it broke. Even when blood was spilled, he continued with his ferocious attack. It will be very difficult to make me believe that Mr. Chidi Lloyd has not taken a human life before. He displayed such murderous intent and seemed to be quite at home with blood and violence. Such a man has no business making laws for human beings. He should be in the company of wild animals; canivores specifically. If a lawmaker cannot go through the proper channels of seeking redress, who will?!  

Another clip showed an officer of the police force brutalizing a sitting member...in fact, I was at loss for words when I viewed the video for the first time. It is the height of crass irresponsibility for a sitting legislator to behave in such rascal manner akin to motor park touts and university cultists. Not an iota of decorum! As for the role of that police man, I have no words to describe just how stupid that was. I sincerely hope he gets summarily dismissed from the force and has criminal proceedings instituted against him for good measure because apparently, he has not an idea of what his job as law officer entails.  

As I watched the video, what crossed my mind was how such despicable characters got elected into the state legislature in the first place. Are things so bad that we now have barbarians sitting in hallowed law-making chambers with the fate of people in their hands? One would expect that Evan Bipi would know that a quorum is required to carry out an impeachment proceeding. Is it that he didn't know this or knew but believed himself to be above the law because he had presidential backing?  

Download, watch and be amazed! http://bit.ly/1ab5bBk

Image credit: Unknown

ARE YOU YOUR BEST FRIEND'S BEST FRIEND?

Before we begin with this topic, there is something we must get out of the way. It is the reality that whether you agree to come to terms with it or not, your best friend could have another as a best friend and could also be the best friend to many others. That being said, where does that leave you?

The word "friend" has lost its special meaning in recent times as it has taken on new meanings over time especially in today's world. With the advent of social media networks like facebook amongst others, the word has acquired new and ordinary meanings which pales in significance to its original meaning.

A new definition is stated thus as:

"A person associated with someone as a contact on a social networking site. "We've never met but we are facebook friends."

I had to laugh when I saw this!

Another definition of friendship is a person who gives assistance; a patron; a supporter; a person who is not hostile; members of the same nation, party, religious group. etc 

Moving on to coinages popular among the younger generation, we now have phrases like friends with benefits, friend zone, fair-weather friends, bestie, etc. It is sad to note that the effects of these new coinages is a complete deviation from the original notion of friendship.

Having gone through a myriad of definitions, the most complete definition that encapsulates the concept of friendship is;

A person whom one knows or whom one is attached to with whom one has or shares a bond of mutual affection or esteem, typically exclusive of family or sexual relations.

The basic elements of friendship are listed thus;

- a friend is someone you know personally.
- a friend is someone you respect and appreciate greatly.
- a friend is someone you support and assist unflinchingly when necessary.
- such friend is no blood relation or sexual partner of yours.

And, the most important of all;

- a friend is someone who feels the exact same way about you as listed above. In other words, the feeling is mutual.

When I think of the above listed characteristics, my model is David and Jonathan. For the benefit of our non-Bible reading readers, David was the son of Jesse, a farm boy who was anointed King of Israel during the subsistence of the reign of King Saul of Israel; Jonathan was the first born son of King Saul, a prince and heir apparent to the throne of Israel, had David not been chosen by God.

The Bible records in 1 Samuel 18:1 that,

"As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

From that moment, their friendship began. Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as much as he loved his own soul. This is my understanding of true friendship or in popular parlance, a best friend.

Today however, things are quite different. That exclusivity in friendship between two people as evidenced during the David-Jonathan era by their covenant (which i must add is not necessary) is mostly gone. A person you consider your best friend may not consider you so. This in itself is no fault of theirs; its just the way it is. Technology has made it possible for businesses to be transacted over the wire; inter-racial and inter-continental dating and friendship have been made possible over the internet.

The implication of this in my estimation is quantity over quality. It is a basic principle of life; the more you have, the less you appreciate or in economic terms, the law of diminishing returns. This is not to say that it is impossible to have many friends and still not have one prized above all others. Of course not!

The problem is where the feeling is not reciprocal. He is your best friend, are you his best friend? What happens when you're not your best friend's best friend? The level of commitment is unequal and this only becomes apparent in times of dire straits. In that moment of truth do we truly realise where we rank in our best friend's priority list.

There's a saying that expecting a lion not to eat you because you do not eat lions is a very faulty assumption. The same can be said when dealing with humans, especially those we consider friends. There's no guarantee in life that you'll be treated the way you treat people - remember Judas Iscariot.

For the man or woman who has a best friend who considers you in equal vein as a best friend, consider yourself lucky and treasure such best friend because they are rare. For the less fortunate, don't feel too bad. Life goes on; just don't let it hamper your capacity to appreciate, love or trust. That you have more friends does not necessarily depreciate the quality of friends you have. The only thing left is to pay more attention to those who you really matter to rather than waste time on people who do not appreciate you as they should.

Malcolm O. Ifi.

Photo Credit: Google