The Nigerian Constitutional provision for citizenship by birth is generally regarded as inclusive and non-discriminatory. However, a critical gap remains conspicuous: the question of a married woman’s state of origin, especially as it pertains to employment, elective offices, or political appointments. Should a married woman retain her birth place (state) as her official state of origin, or does her husband’s state of origin supersede state of birth?
This ambiguity in the Constitution has, in recent years, raised significant legal and political disputes, particularly within the context of Nigeria’s federal character principle, as enshrined in Sections 14(3) and 14(4) of the 1999 Constitution.
The federal character principle mandates that public appointments and other federal representations reflect the diverse makeup of Nigeria to foster national unity and reduce inequalities among states.
Section 14(3) of the Constitution emphasizes the need for “fair representation in appointments at the federal level,” while Section 14(4) extends this requirement to ensure “fair representation in states and local governments.”
However, the Constitution remains silent on whether a married woman’s state of origin for federal or state appointments should align with her birth state or her husband’s state. This ambiguity has far-reaching implications, as illustrated by several notable examples.
One of the most high-profile cases highlighting this issue was in 2012, when then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Justice Maryam Aloma Mukhtar, declined to administer the oath of office to a newly appointed female Justice of the Court of Appeal because a petition had been raised against her.
The petition argued that although the justice was an indigene of Anambra State, her marriage to a man from Abia State disqualified her from occupying the Abia State slot on the Court of Appeal. This incident exposed the complications arising from the undefined status of a married woman’s state of origin.
Similarly, the appointment of Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as a minister under President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration was met with resistance. Okonjo-Iweala, originally from Delta State but married to an Abia State man, was nominated under the Abia State slot.
Some stakeholders contended that she should not represent Abia, as she was not a native of the state by birth. Interestingly, neither Delta nor Abia State was comfortable with her nomination under their federal character slot, leaving her in a unique political limbo.
Another illustrative case was the appointment of Mrs. Josephine Anenih as Minister of Women Affairs. Although appointed under Anambra State, her state of origin, her marriage to an Edo State man spurred opposition from Anambra politicians who argued that she should have filled the Edo State slot instead.
These cases starkly illustrate the tensions and ambiguities women face in navigating their identities between birth state and marital state, often leaving them vulnerable to political marginalization and exclusion.
In the light of these cases, it becomes apparent that the silence of the Nigerian Constitution on the ‘state of origin’ of a married woman has resulted in the inadvertent marginalization of some married women, rendering them effectively “stateless” in the federal character framework.
By not definitively addressing whether a married woman should retain her birth state or adopt her husband’s state as her state of origin, the Constitution leaves women susceptible to disenfranchisement in public service roles.
This lack of clarity not only contravenes the spirit of equity but also undermines the Constitution’s commitment to ensuring fair representation and non-discrimination across all states.
RECOMMENDATION
Given these systemic challenges, a constitutional or statutory amendment is urgently needed to define the state of origin of a married woman within the context of public appointments and political representation. Such a reform should ensure that marital status neither renders a woman stateless nor disqualifies her from her rightful representation and entitlements.
This step would not only align with the egalitarian spirit of Sections 42 of the 1999 constitution, which guarantee freedom from discrimination and equality of opportunity, but also reinforce the inclusive intent behind Nigeria’s federal character principle.
CONCLUSION
Without this clarity, the status of married women within the federal character framework remains precarious, subjecting them to arbitrary interpretations of indigeneity and curtailing their potential to serve in public offices based on an ill-defined state affiliation.
About the Author
Chrispodiah Emmanuel is a Research Consultant, a writer, and a graduate of law from the Faculty of Law, Taraba State University.