Why Our Gender Bills Should Fly

In 2020, Justice Akon Ikpeme, an indigene of Akwa Ibom State married to a man from Cross River State was denied the position of the substantive chief judge of the state because she was not from there by birth even though she met the requirements for the job and had worked in the state for many years. It took a nationwide outcry and protests by several women groups for the State Assembly to backtrack and confirm her as the substantive chief judge of the state.
In December 2014, Justice Theresa Uzokwe, an indigene of Imo State but married to an Abia State man was appointed chief judge of Abia State by former Governor Theodore Orji and hell was let loose as the State Assembly and many other people from the state criticised the appointment owing to the fact that she was a ‘non-indigene’.
Justices Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo of Abia State, Patricia Mahmoud of Kano State, Elizabeth Asabe Karatu from Kebbi State and several other judicial officers had similar experiences when they were to be appointed into certain offices in their husbands’ states. They would dedicate themselves in serving the states of their marriage for many years and no one asked why a ‘non-indigene’ would serve the states so well but when it was time for them to be elevated or be given an opportunity to serve in a higher capacity, the issue of their parentage was raised.
Section 26 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provides that a non-Nigerian woman married to a Nigerian man can become a Nigerian citizen by Registration. No mention was made of a non-Nigerian man married to a Nigerian woman. Shouldn’t such a person also enjoy the privilege of becoming a Nigerian?
Just a few days ago, a federal high court in Abuja dismissed a suit by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) seeking to invalidate some provisions in the Nigeria Police Force Regulations (NPFR) which forbid unmarried female police officers from getting pregnant.
The Association had approached the court to challenge the legality of regulation 127 of the NPFR, which provides that “an unmarried woman police officer, who becomes pregnant, shall be discharged from the Force and shall not be re-enlisted except with the approval of the inspector-general of police”, arguing that the said provision contradicts the 1999 constitution and is discriminatory to unmarried female police officers. But Justice Inyang Ekwo ruled that there was no basis for this action in the first place and that an unmarried woman who intends to get pregnant is not compelled to join the police. “Where such a woman becomes a police officer, she is bound by the regulation on pregnancy while being unmarried”, he held.
Search through the NPFR and you will see no similar regulation for single male police officers. A male single police officer can impregnate as many women as he likes and nothing happens to him. It goes without saying that the pregnant single police woman did not impregnate herself, a man was definitely responsible. What if that man is a single police man? The woman will be fired while the man continues to enjoy his job?
These are some of the anomalies the gender bills that were rejected by the National Assembly at the ongoing constitutional amendment exercise aimed at addressing. The sponsors of the bill, which included male and female, wanted the discriminatory citizenship section in the constitution to be amended to make room for equal treatment of both male and female non-Nigerian who can become Nigerian citizens by marriage.
They wanted the issue of non-indigeneship to be legislated upon so that going forward, no woman will be denied her rightful position in her state of marriage; women will be able to take indigeneship in their husband’s state after five years of being together. You can imagine the emotional and psychological effect of the rejection by both their husbands’ state and their state of origin, who usually send them back to their husbands’ state because they have been married out. Both states claim they are not their indigenes, so, where are they from? Shouldn’t this be tackled constitutionally to prevent the unfair, discriminatory acts meted on the women and give them a full sense of belonging?
Honestly, one is tempted to agree with some female activists who claim that the lawmakers that voted against the bills did not even go through them to know what they contained because looking at the importance of some aspects of the bills towards making Nigeria a more peaceful, more progressive society, one would have expected all the legislators to give their nod to them. These lawmakers have wives, sisters, daughters and other females around them who will benefit from these bills both now and in the future. In fact, the entire nation will be better off because it has been proven that the more women participate in governance and politics, the better for the country.
It is sad that 61 years after Independence, women have only 4.4 per cent representation in the National Assembly, occupying only 19 out of 469 seats in both chambers of the Legislature. In all the state Assemblies nationwide, only 44 members are women. About 15 states are said to have no female lawmakers such that men chair the Women Affairs Committee in those Houses. This explains the ranking of Nigeria as the worst performer in women representation in parliaments, in the West African region and one of the lowest in the whole of Africa by a recent report.
So, any necessary action to shove up the numbers should be seriously considered. An example that comes to mind on issues like this is Rwanda. In 2003, Rwanda passed an amendment of her constitution which established a 30 per cent reservation for women across all elective positions. By the end of the 2013 General Elections, 61 per cent of the seats in the Rwandan parliament went to women, underscoring Rwanda as the leader and frontier of women in politics and governance across the globe. Other countries like Cuba, UAE, Bolivia, Mexico, and Sweden have adopted Rwanda’s style by implementing similar tactics which helped each of them achieve a higher number of women in politics and governance. Why can’t Nigeria follow suit?
What is the big deal about granting women 35 per cent affirmative action in party administration and leadership as well as specific seats for women in the National and State Assemblies? Why can’t the women’s request for the passage of the Gender and Equal Opportunities bill currently before the Senate and immediate domestication of the African Charters Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, which Nigeria ratified in 2004 as well as the domestication of the UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which Nigeria ratified in 1985 be granted by the National Assembly?
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day celebration is gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow, #BreakTheBias and it is, indeed, high time Nigeria joined other countries the world over to come up with sincere and practicable measures of eliminating all forms of discriminations and bias against women both in the political sphere, workplace, at school and at home and everywhere. Nigerian women truly deserve better treatment and more inclusion and participation in government.
However, the manner in which the women go about getting these demands can make a whole lot of difference. Being confrontational and antagonistic as leaders of some women groups have been since the rejection of the gender bills is not the way to go. African culture, the tenets of the various religions being practiced on the continent require women to submit to men. If the women in Nigeria overlook this and make it seem as if they are rubbing shoulders with the men, achieving their goal may be difficult irrespective of how laudable they may be.
Again, although many women have debunked the assertion of the spokesman of the House of Representative, Benjamin Kalu concerning why the gender bills could not scale through, it is important the champions of the bills and the women groups take into cognizant some points made by the law maker.  He said, “It takes a lot of orientation; it takes a lot of advocacy. It takes a lot of sensitisation to enable people to buy into these important agendas. Do you know why? Because you cannot play down on our current issues with regards to emerging democracies, one of which is our religious disposition, our cultural dispositions.
“These things play a role. We are part of the society, our religion and culture is part of society. It needs a lot of advocacy by civil society organisations, women groups, to push this agenda forward; it is a wonderful agenda.”
It is also important that women should resolve to support, encourage and mentor one another. A situation where a woman stands for an election and gets little or no votes from her fellow women does not show that the women are serious about achieving the goal. Besides, women should develop themselves educationally and otherwise to be qualified for whatever appointment and not just wait for the offer to be thrown at them merely because they are women.

By: Calista Ezeaku