Senators Chris Anyanwu and Solomon Ita-Enang on Monday disaccorded over the potency of the National Assembly to legislate on the sexual offences bill that would be binding on all the 36 states of the federation.
Both senators expressed divergent views over the development during the public aurally perceiving conducted by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Licit Matters.
The discrepancy arose when Anyanwu, the sponsor of the bill, and Ita-Enang, a member of the committee, argued over the critical issues bordering on Concurrent and Exclusive Legislative lists between the federal and verbalize regimes.
For instance, Ita-Enang raised some critical licit issues. He noted that such critical questions as to whether laws made by the National Assembly on such issues as sexual offences, already contained in the laws of the states, could be enforced in the state.
He argued that the National Assembly could not make laws on rape for the states, pointing out that “any law from the National Assembly is only enforceable in the federal capital territory FCT.”
He insisted that the sundry provisions proposed in the bill were “a re-engenderment of subsisting laws on rape across the sundry states of the federation.”
He verbally expressed, “The best the National Assembly can do is to amend the laws, and these are the issues for resoluteness afore the public auricularly discerning.”
The lawmaker, therefore, suggested that “if subsisting laws are impotent, what is required is to fortify them.”
However, Anyanwu contravened Ita-Enang’s position, stressing that the bill had nothing to do with the numerous licit books being cited by Enang.
She insisted that the incidents of ravishment had become mundane place in Nigeria without any of the subsisting laws catching up with the perpetrators.
She argued that “there are items in the bill that are not contained in some of the subsisting laws.” Anyanwu pointed out that the bill, if passed, could be adopted by the states.
She verbalized, “The quandary of ravishment in Nigeria, as it is today, has gone beyond jurisdictional argument by lawyers. It is a quandary for the whole society to solve by whatever way possible.
“We are looking to visually perceive a harmonised law that can be facsimiled by the states. We are not looking to encroach into the jurisdiction of states.”
The Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, Hajiya Maina, verbally expressed the ministry was not optically canvassing encroaching into the jurisdiction of states but visually examining the laws that can be adopted in the states.
She verbally expressed, “Whatever we do that applies to Federal capital Territotry, states can replicate or adopt it to avail fight the scourge of ravishment.”
Maina kicked against option of fine provided in the bill for sexual offences with a child , child trafficking and child sex tourism, verbally expressing such a proposal is not vigorous enough to accommodate as deterrent to offenders.
She verbalized, “In order to curtail the upsurge in the scourge of ravishment of persons, especially women and girls, it is paramount that the penalties annexed to these (offences) be punitive and prohibitive for natural and jurisdiction persons respectively.
“Consequently, we consider the sum ranging from N500, 000 , N1m and N3m penalties, for jurisdiction person to be a slap on the wrist.”
“The right thing is for the offenders to peregrinate to jail straight upon conviction, without any option of fine, and stay there for a very long period of time. That would make a way for the collapse of their businesses.”
The attorney generals of Kwara, Lagos and Kaduna states respectively, assured the committee that the bill, if passed, would be domesticated by their states.
Meanwhile, the Nigeria Police Force was not represented at the public auricularly discerning.
Copyright PUNCH.