A legal practitioner, Ifeoma Ihesie has strongly opposed a reported bill seeking to criminalise adultery in Akwa Ibom State, describing the proposed legislation as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of consenting adults.
CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE BELOW AFTER THESE IMPORTANT NOTICES
The proposed legislation, reportedly sponsored by the Deputy Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Senator Akon Inyang, is titled the “Adultery Prohibition Bill.” According to reports, the bill seeks to prohibit girls and women from engaging in sexual relationships with married men.
Under the reported provisions of the bill, women found guilty would face 10 years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine, while the married men involved in the same act would be liable only to a fine of ₦2 million.
Reacting to the proposal, the lawyer argued that the bill violates several provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), particularly the constitutional guarantees of privacy and equality before the law. Citing Section 37 of the Constitution, he maintained that every Nigerian citizen, whether married or unmarried, is entitled to the right to privacy, adding that marriage does not extinguish an individual’s constitutional rights.
According to her “The Deputy Governor, Her Excellency Senator Akon Inyang, reportedly proposed a bill captioned the “Adultery Prohibition Bill,” which explicitly prohibits girls and women from engaging in sexual relationships with married men. The Bill is reportedly set to be considered by the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly.
The Bill allegedly prescribes a punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment for women, without the option of a fine, while imposing a fine of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) on men.
I vehemently oppose this Bill on the ground that it violates Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which guarantees and protects the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens.
Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides:
“The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.”
Being married does not automatically extinguish the individual constitutional rights of either spouse. A husband or wife remains a citizen entitled to the protection guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution.
Adultery is recognised under the Matrimonial Causes Act in the context of proceedings for the dissolution of marriage. It is a matrimonial issue that may constitute a fact relied upon in establishing that a marriage has broken down irretrievably.
Furthermore, Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution prohibits discrimination on specified constitutional grounds, including sex. The proposed Bill appears manifestly discriminatory against women. Why should a woman be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment while a man involved in the same consensual sexual act is merely required to pay a fine of N2,000,000.00?
In some Northern States of Nigeria operating Sharia penal legislation, adultery may constitute a criminal offence under the applicable Sharia Penal Codes. However, under the general criminal law applicable in many Southern States, adultery is not ordinarily treated as a criminal offence merely by virtue of being adultery. Rather, it is principally relevant in matrimonial proceedings.
Notwithstanding the residual legislative powers of a State House of Assembly to enact laws on matters within its constitutional competence, such laws must not conflict with the Constitution or any valid federal law applicable to the subject matter.
Section 4(5) of the Constitution provides as follows:
“If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other Law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Accordingly, to the extent that the proposed “Adultery Prohibition Bill” discriminates on the basis of sex or unjustifiably infringes constitutionally protected rights, its provisions may be challenged as unconstitutional, null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.
Her Excellency should be advised to focus her legislative advocacy on laws and policies aimed at preventing the looting and misappropriation of public funds. She should equally focus on creating employment opportunities for the people of her State, particularly women, rather than promoting legislation that may encourage intrusion into the private lives of consenting adults.
Let her empower the women of Akwa Ibom State financially and academically. Economic independence and access to quality education can provide women with greater opportunities, dignity and freedom of choice. A financially empowered woman is better positioned to make independent decisions and to reject relationships that undermine her dignity and personal integrity.
When a government fails in its civic responsibilities to its citizens, economic hardship may force some people to resort to desperate or undesirable means of survival. For some, relationships with married persons may become a perceived means of financial support. The government should address the underlying economic and social conditions rather than impose discriminatory punishment on women.
Let Her Excellency propose a Bill that reduces the flamboyant and excessive allowances enjoyed by political office holders and redirects public resources towards improving the lives of the people of Akwa Ibom State and Nigerians generally.
Consensual sexual relations between two adults involve the voluntary participation of both persons. It is therefore fundamentally unjust to impose a disproportionately severe punishment on one participant merely because she is a woman, while treating the male participant more leniently.
A law that punishes a woman with 10 years’ imprisonment while allowing the man involved in the same act to walk away after paying a fine raises serious questions of equality, discrimination and constitutional validity.
In this article