- Federal Govt’s new provision of worship centres getting individual approvals should be tested in court
The report in the media that the Federal Government is insisting that worship centres must get wedding license will lead to controversy. But it is curious the government is insisting that every worship centre must individually get a license, instead of relying on the license issued to their respective headquarters. We recognise that item number 61 in the exclusive legislative list provides on “the formation, annulment and dissolution of marriages other than marriages under Islamic law and customary law, including matrimonial causes relating thereto.”
We also recognise the provisions of the Marriage Act, a federal legislation, dealing with the issuance of licenses to marriage centres before a valid marriage can be contracted. However, it is pertinent to ask whether those provisions are also not discriminatory against persons who choose to contract their marriages in their preferred churches. Indeed, it will be interesting for concerned individuals to test in court whether the act is discriminatory against them.
Agreed that the Marriage Act covers the entire federation as the legislation regulating a certain type of marriage, but has the constitutional provision been interpreted by the courts to include authority for the Federal Government to issue licenses as provided by the Marriage Act? In our view, the new regulation by the Federal Government that all worship centres should get wedding license should be tested in court by individuals and states. After all, the 1999 constitution (as amended) grants the fundamental right of freedom of thoughts, conscience and religion in section 38(1).
So, can it not be argued that by insisting that every worship centre must get a license before conducting “marriages” the Federal Government is encumbering that provision of the constitution? Again, the constitution in section 42 bars the Federal Government or indeed any other authority from engaging in discriminatory practices on the basis of religion or other listed standards. Could the imposition of a standard not applicable to other practitioners of other religions be viewed as discriminatory by the courts, by having offended the provisions of the constitution in question?
The constitution in S.42(1)(a) clearly provides: “A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic groups, 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”.
The new regulation sought to be enforced is also worrisome, because in a federal system of government, marriages should not be in the exclusive legislative list. With the Federal Government already overreaching the states with its bloated exclusive legislative list, is marriage not one item that should be yanked off from that nearly omnibus list? We think it should. Indeed, if the states are in charge of marriages, they could gain some resources from such practice. More so, the states are better situated to regulate such matters.
As expected also, the matter has assumed a religious dimension, with the leadership of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) mocking the intention of the Federal Government, to license them, while those of other faiths, like Islam, are left to operate without license. In pushing their right, the Federal Government should know that many Nigerians consider the 1999 constitution as defective, and so will not be persuaded by the finer provision of the law, as is. Most likely, they would consider any such provision as one more evidence of the defect.
