The competition between the Ministry of Interior and the local government councils over control of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act, raises a red flag over yet another contradiction in our federal constitution. The 1999 constitution (as amended), provides a list of legislative powers in its Second Schedule, and Part 1 of the schedule provides for matters exclusively under the control of the federal legislators. Item number 61 of the schedule provides for: “The formation, annulment and dissolution of marriages other than marriages under Islamic law and customary law including matrimonial causes relating thereto.”
So, by that provision, the Federal Government and its agencies have exclusive preserve on that type of marriage, commonly referred to as marriage under the act; while the customary and Islamic marriages fall under the residual list, and as such can be regulated by local government councils. We consider the exclusive and discriminatory legislation on a type of marriage an aberration, and an unnecessary centralisation of local issues. As we have done on other occasions, we demand for the review of the provisions of the 1999 constitution, particularly a reordering of the exclusive legislative list and the accompanying prerogatives.
Moreover, it is strange that the makers of the 1999 constitution considered it wise to create the local government as a quasi-third-tier government, yet failed to leave significant economic opportunities for it to operate. That is why something as local as the conduct of marriage and issuing of certificates of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act, have become a subject of controversy between the mighty Ministry of Interior and the lilliputian local government councils. Even with the many agencies tied to the apron strings of the Ministry of Interior, it is still saddled with the control of marriages.
Unfortunately, as unpalatable as that scenario of a Federal Government agency controlling marriages under the act in all remote parts of Nigeria is, that is the law presently. We recognise this anomaly, but we consider the present situation an aberration, for a nation that claims to be a federation. We therefore urge the legislative arm of government at the federal and state levels to cooperate to change the laws. It is either item number 61 is delisted in the Exclusive Legislative List, or the Marriage Act is amended by the federal legislators to delegate authority to the local government council to conduct that type of marriage also.
After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It is unexplainable that a greater burden is placed on persons wishing to establish their marriage union under the Marriage Act, more than those who come under the customary or Islamic laws. So, it is important that the protagonists of strict adherence to item number 61 in the Exclusive Legislative List, and the consequent legislations, weigh whether those provisions are discriminatory or not. Section 42, dealing with fundamental human rights provides that nobody should be discriminated against because he belongs to a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion.
Going forward, the local government councils should lobby the state governments to weigh in on their behalf to salvage what may become one good source of income for them. Citizens who are affected by what seems to be a discriminatory legislation should also demand for a change. Even the Federal Government should be magnanimous to shed weight in the interest of a healthier federation. Clearly, allowing the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Interior to control marriages in all parts of the country is not a plus to the practice of federalism.
