The Gender Equal Opportunity Bill: Matters Arising

The rejection of the Gender and Equal Opportunities (GEO) Bill by the National Assembly (NASS) for the third time, on March 15 2016 is a study in squandered opportunities.

The first and most obvious is the chance to deepen our collective understanding of the Constitution. The public accounts of the latest rejection of the bill in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on October 21 2015 indicate that there are two major objections to the bill. Opponents say, in the Senate, the bill infringes on the constitutional rights of Nigerians to practice custom and religion and in the House the bill is in violation of the Constitution as it discriminates on the basis of gender (Section 15(2)).

What provisions of the Constitution provide the grounds for consistent objection to prospective laws to improve the lives of women and girls on the basis that these bills contain unconstitutional provisions? In recognizing the right of individuals to choose the application of customary or sharia law in personal matters, does the Constitution really preclude future laws that cover all aspects of life in general for the rest of the Nigerians? If the Constitution is supreme and laws which are inconsistent with it shall be void (Section 1) then why can’t the argument be made that certain applications of Sharia and Customary law are discriminatory and these bills are meant to address existing inconsistencies?

It is clear that the Sharia Custom Defence, which was also used in 2013 to defeat the second vote to amend Section 29(4) (b) of the Constitution, is here to stay. The intention then was to protect the citizenship of young girls under 18 who were deemed capable of renouncing their citizenship because they were married (though still too young to vote or drive). In the face of frequent wielding of the Sharia Custom Defence against laws to improve the lives of women and girls, the question is: when will the NASS commission a legal opinion on the intent and interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?

This ties with the second lost opportunity: to raise the level of debate during the legislative process. The second reading – which was where the GEO Bill was when it was rejected, is the stage where bills are debated. Olujinmi, the sponsor of the Bill and at least four colleagues (Garba, Ekweremadu, Na’Allah and Ndume) spoke briefly in favour of the Bill. Then Yerima and Bwacha raised the Sharia Custom Defense and it was game over. The sponsor should have been prepared to respond and open up the discussion to a proper debate on this often used interpretation of the Constitution. This is where a legal opinion might have made the difference; it might not have won the vote in favour of the Bill, but there would be a sense that the issues were seriously considered by the legislators and our collective appreciation of our constitution would have been enriched.

The third opportunity lost is in improving the legislative process and being better prepared. It is hard to believe, considering the history of the GEO Bill and the well-known views of some Senators, that those in support of the Bill did not anticipate the use of the Sharia Custom Defense. If Olujinmi could not adequately lobby enough of her colleagues to ensure the passing of the second reading then she should have asked as a courtesy that the reading be postponed. The Sharia Custom Defense is like a nuclear weapon – the minute it is raised – everyone surrenders. One would expect that the Senate President in view of his carefully designed persona as progressive, sophisticated political strategist to have asked Bwacha and Yerima if it was possible that when the Bill becomes law (i) they find that their personal rights to access Sharia and Customary courts remain unaffected and (ii) that should the personal enjoyment of their religion and custom come under threat they take the matter to the Sharia and Customary courts for ruling.

It is also disappointing that almost a year into a Saraki-Dogara led National Assembly Nigerians still have no transparent process for knowing how their legislators vote on important issues. Shouting yea and nay is outdated and not conducive to accountability and the development of public policy.

The Senate President and the Minister for Women Affairs have promised Nigerians that the GEO Bill will be reintroduced. In what state, no one is certain considering calls to chop up the bill and/or remove contentious provisions. What is certain though is that there are basic minimums necessary for passing not just the GEO Bill but other bills focused on improving the quality of life for women and girls – and indirectly millions of boys and men. We need a legal opinion on the Sharia Custom Defense and thanks to the Majority Leader, Gbajabiamila, another on affirmative action being discriminatory and unconstitutional. We need better preparation by supporters of these bills to ensure internal and external support for the passage of bills and we need the leadership of the National Assembly to ensure that the debates on the issues are open and meaningful and the legislative processes continuously improved. We cannot continue to do things the same way and expect change.