YEJIDE GBENGA-OGUNDARE periscopes the fate of married Nigerian women who are being tossed by circumstances as the constitution that should protect them, watches helplessly.
Recently, the House of Representatives Committee on the review of the 1999 Constitution proposed the creation of 31 additional states in the country. This was considered unnecessary by many who felt the existing states are currently not viable, expressing the belief that it is a misplaced priority that will add to the already volatile nature of some states, especially in terms of the identity of people.
The critics also queried the relevance or development 67 states will bring to the country aside inflating the cost of governance and causing further confusion.
A person’s origin means his/her ethnicity; indeed, ethnicity is a primary identifier and in Nigeria, ethnicity is usually related to state where the father comes from because it is a country with a patrilineal nature and this means every individual is born within the ancestry of his/her father.
The state of origin has been a source of discourse and controversies over the years in Nigeria. And it is indeed not surprising that some people have changed states, not because they wanted but because there was creation of additional states, moving them from their original state to a new one.
For those that came to the world between the years 1967 and 1975, they cannot claim that they are still from the state of origin they would have claimed at birth. An example of this, is people from the old Bendel state. It is a fact that within this period, there were only 12 states in Nigeria and out of these 12, there are only four still recognised legally as states as of today.
Creation of states
When the British colonial administrators got to Nigeria, the country was divided into two protectorates; Southern protectorate and the Northern protectorate but in 1914, the two protectorates were fused together through amalgamation and in 1949, the country was divided by the colonial administrators into three regions; the eastern region, the western region and the northern region.
In these three regions, there were several minority ethnic groups and in 1963, a fourth region was created and named the mid-western region; it was carved out of the Western region of the country. However, all the regions were dissolved on May 5, 1967 by the Military Head of State, Yakubu Gowon and 12 states were created. He made history as the first ruler to create states in Nigeria.
The 12 states are Kano, Kwara, Lagos, Rivers, East-central state, Benue-Plateau state, Mid-western state, North-eastern state, North-central state, North-western state, Western state and South-Eastern state. And when he was overthrown through a military coup in 1975, the new military head of state, Murtala Mohammed created additional seven states in 1976 bringing the number to 19. He added these seven states: Anambra, Bauchi, Benue, Imo, Niger, Ogun and Ondo state. These states existed like this until Ibrahim Babangida took over and created two states in 1987; Akwa-Ibom and Katsina but four years later, he created nine additional states namely; Abia, Enugu, Delta, Jigawa, Kebbi, Osun, Kogi, Taraba and Yobe states. And on October 1, 1996, Sani Abacha created six more states for the country.
He carved Ebonyi out of Abia and Enugu states, Bayelsa out of Rivers state, Nasarawa out of Plateau state, Ekiti out of Ondo state and Zamfara out of Sokoto state, bringing the states to 36.
Jackboot v Due Process
Under the military, there is a process for state creation in Nigeria, where decrees are passed with little or no procedure in place, but a properly-constituted government in a democratic setting faces a rigorous process for creation of states.
The procedure is enshrined in Section 8 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution with the following provisions:
A request, often led by political leaders, traditional rulers or advocacy groups, for the creation of a new state is made to the National Assembly, which must be supported by at least two-third majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of the new State) in each of the following, namely: the Senate and the House of Representatives, the House of Assembly in respect of the area, and the local government councils in respect of the area.
The proposal for the creation of the State is to be approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated, then, the result of the referendum is to be approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation (at least 24 out of 36 states) supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly.
The proposal must be approved by a resolution passed by two-third majority of members of each House of the National Assembly and after a successful referendum; the National Assembly prepares a constitutional amendment bill. The amendment bill must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both the Senate and House of Representatives. The bill is then sent to the President for assent, marking the final step in the process of creating a new state.
Is constitution anti-new states?
This long procedure may be one of the reasons why no new states have been created since 1996 despite numerous proposals, especially the 2014 National Conference which recommended the creation of 18 new states to address perceived marginalization. They proposed Ijebu State (from Ogun); Anioma State (from Delta); Oduduwa State (from Osun/Ondo); Etiti State (from the South-East); Gurara State (from Niger/Kaduna); Tiga State (from Kano). There was also proposed creation of Adada State from Enugu and Ogoja State from Cross River.
However, the existence of states have further divided the people beyond ethnic lines as the last election revealed that a man’s state of origin goes a long way in what he can achieve in Nigeria in particular situations.
This is against the provisions of the constitution of the 1999 Federal Republic of Nigeria which specifically makes stipulations on national integration something that should be aggressively encouraged, while discrimination on the basis of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic connection, or ties is to be outlawed, according to Section 15 (2) of the Constitution.
Some have argued that in a nation with more than 500 languages, over 300 ethnic groups and a wide range of regional and religious distinctions, the state of origin theory, which is one of the most varied cultures in the entire globe as it is codified in law, makes the one-Nigeria claim a mirage and a British creation that doesn’t fit the reality of a country like Nigeria.
Some argue that the state of origin should end immediately while the constitution is reviewed and focus placed on the establishment of concrete laws that reflect Nigeria’s diversity.
Married woman’s state of origin
While the Nigerian Constitutional provision for citizenship by birth is generally regarded as inclusive and non-discriminatory, experts claim a wide gap remains conspicuous especially in terms of a married woman’s state of origin, especially in terms of employment, elective offices, or political appointments.
There have been questions on whether a married woman retain her state of birth as her official state of origin or her husband’s state of origin supersede state of birth. This ambiguity in the Constitution has raised legal and political disputes, particularly within the context of Nigeria’s federal character principle, as enshrined in Sections 14(3) and 14(4) of the 1999 Constitution.
The federal character principle mandates that public appointments and other federal representations reflect the diverse makeup of Nigeria to foster national unity and reduce inequalities among states. Section 14(3) of the Constitution emphasizes the need for fair representation in appointments at the federal level while Section 14(4) extends this requirement to ensure “fair representation in states and local governments but the same constitution remains silent on whether a married woman’s state of origin for federal or state appointments should align with her birth state or her husband’s state.
A case study is the issue of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Justice Maryam Aloma Mukhtar, in 2012 when she refused to administer the oath of office to a newly-appointed female Justice of the Court of Appeal because a petition was raised against her, arguing that though she was an indigene of Anambra State, her marriage to a man from Abia State disqualified her from occupying the Abia State slot on the Court of Appeal.
This is one of the complications associated with the undefined status of a married woman’s state of origin; it also happened during the appointment of Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as a minister under President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration as her appointment was contested due to the fact that she was originally from Delta State, married to an Abia State man but was nominated under the Abia State slot.
These are just few of the challenges women face because of state of origin which causes issues in navigating their identities between birth state and marital state, often leaving them vulnerable to political marginalisation and exclusion
It is said that by not definitively addressing whether a married woman should retain her birth state or adopt her husband’s state as her state of origin, the Constitution leaves women susceptible to disenfranchisement in public service roles. And this contravenes the spirit of equity and the Constitution’s commitment to ensuring fair representation and non-discrimination across all states.
Call for amendment of laws
Because of the various issues caused by state of origin, people have called for a constitutional or statutory amendment to define the state of origin of a married woman within the context of public appointments and political representation. Such a reform should ensure that marital status neither renders a woman stateless nor disqualifies her from her rightful representation and entitlements in order to bring alive the egalitarian spirit of Sections 42 of the 1999 constitution, which not only guarantee freedom from discrimination and equality of opportunity, but also reinforce the inclusive intent behind Nigeria’s federal character principle.
Also, they expressed belief that an amendment is needed to stop discrimination especially in the political space in line with the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 42 of the constitution which provides right to freedom from discrimination when it said “a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person; be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religious or political opinions are not made subject; or
If such a person be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, s3x, religious or political opinions.
It also stipulated that no citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.
READ ALSO: Faulty constitution, root of Nigeria’s problem — Bishop Arogundade
and then