 |
|
Former Senator Mrs Chris
Anyanwu: Did she read the draft the 7th Senate passed?
|
Contrary to the belief that the recently passed Sexual
Offences Bill encourages the defilement of minors, the legislation actually
prescribes a life imprisonment term for anyone who has sex with someone under the
age of 18 years, PREMIUM TIMES can report.
The bill, which was
among the 46 bills hurriedly passed by the last National Assembly,
stipulates life imprisonment for any individual convicted of raping or having
sexual intercourse with a minor, among others. It sparked outrage after
earlier reports that it had set 11 years as the age of consent for sexual
intercourse. Nobel laureate, Wole
Soyinka, criticized the bill saying it empowered the “clique of paedophiles.”
“All you need do is
‘marry’ even a six year old under any local laws, and do whatever you want with
her. Through marriage, she is already an ‘adult.’ Her ‘defiler’ is now fully
protected by this law. She is not,” he said at the time.
Femi Falana, a human
rights lawyer, also described the bill as “obnoxious” and threatened to go to
court if the bill is signed into law.
According to Mr. Falana,
when the bill was unanimously passed for a second reading by the Senate on
November 21, 2013, it sought a penalty of life imprisonment for the offence of
defilement of children less than 18 years.
“It was that Committee
(Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters) that illegally removed the age of 18
years and replaced it with 11 years,” said Mr. Falana.
In her response to the
public outrage, Chris Anyanwu, who sponsored the bill, accused its
critics of hate-mongering and taking advantage of the negative public feelings
built up against the legislature.
“I suspect that some of
those fighting against the bill are fixating on the short title,” said Mrs.
Anyanwu, a former member of the Senate.
“Its long title shows
what it is: a sexual offences prevention bill; a tough deterrence to crime.”
What the bill says
The bill is known as “An
Act to Make Provision About Sexual Offences, Their Definition, Prevention And
the Protection Of All Persons From Harm, Unlawful Sexual Acts, And For Purposes
Connected Therewith”.
Section 7 of the bill,
the controversial part which dealt with defilement of children, states that:
7. (1) A person who
commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence
called defilement.
(2) A person who commits
an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon
conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(3) A person who commits
an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen
years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.
(4) A person who
commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and
eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.
Chioma Nwigwe, Director
of The Eight Foundation, said the different sub-sections in Section 7 ought to
have been merged into one sub-section.
“This bill actually
recommends imprisonment for life as punishment for defilement of any child
below the age of 18,” said Ms. Nwigwe, whose organization is dedicated to
highlighting the issue of sexual violence against women and providing victims
with the necessary support.
“However, what is
confusing is why they chose to put those penalties in different sections. The
bill could have simply said: ‘A person who commits an offence of defilement on
any child is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.’ The child has
already been defined by the Constitution and by the Children and Young Persons
Act.
”A lot of people have
read just one subsection, which is that subsection that says ‘A person who
commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall
upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life’ and interpreted it
to mean that 11 years is now the new age of consent, but that is not true. The
same penalty is imposed on defilement of any child below the age of 18.”
Ms. Nwigwe called for an
amendment of some sections of the bill, including Section (7)(5) which states
that:
(5) It is a defence to a
charge under the section (if)-
(a) It is proved that
such child deceived the accused person into believing that he or she was over
the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged commission of the offence;
and
(b) the accused person
reasonably believed that the child was over the age of eighteen years.
”This is a child, you can’t
expect them to be responsible, that is why they are children,” she said.
“That is why the law is
expected to go out of its way to protect them. So when you impose
responsibility on this child, you’ve taken away the protection the law offers
them. The responsibility should be on the adult to make sure the child is over
the age of 18, in which case they will no longer be children.
“So what this law does is
it takes away the coverage this law had given to the child and impose
responsibility on the child. And that is what we should be fighting. These
defences need to be taken out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment