THISDAYonline

An important craving of every individual is to have more control over his/her life. This craving has been articulated in various forms including a sense of belonging or participation within a given space. In order to assert this sense of belonging, the notion of citizenship has been used howbeit, variously depending on changing identities and interests.

This has made the notion of citizenship controversial particularly in Nigeria and a matter of constant public debate (Alubo, O. 2001). These debates are not unique to Nigeria. The meaning of citizenship and whether nationality should be the basis for organising identity politics are emerging dimensions of this debate globally.

In the light of this development it is important to revisit the provisions of Chapter III of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Citizenship. How does this provision address the appearance of new forms of identity politics, whereby groups formed on the basis of shared ethnicity, religion, gender or class enter political arenas in search of recognition and a remolding of citizenship so that it reflects their fractionalised forms of personal identity (Miller, D. 2000).

The question of the entitlements that should accrue to individuals and groups in a society is an intensely political issue and involves the definition of citizenship. Some common definitions of citizenship assume the existence of nationals of a country without the markings of gender, class, caste, community and other forms of differences.

This nationalitybased view is underscored in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which recognises that everyone without exception has a right to a nationality. It further states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his/her nationality nor denied the right to change his or her nationality. Many constitutions of countries embody similar provisions.

In Nigeria, Chapter III of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution provides for citizenship by birth, naturalisation and by registration. By virtue of any of these forms of citizenship, every Nigerian is entitled to the rights and privileges provided by the state and is also subject to the duties and responsibilities prescribed for citizens.

But the Constitution contradicts itself in terms of the specific application of these rights. It fails to address the issues that arise through gender inequality and residency of women married to foreigner or Nigerians foreign to their location of origin. For instance, a foreign woman married to a Nigerian man is entitled to citizenship by registration whereas, the same is not extended to a foreigner married to a Nigerian woman.

Moreover, the indigenship factor in the federal character principle S14(3) and S25(1) of the 1999 Constitution impinge on the residency rights as contained in section 15(3)(b) of the 1999 Constitution. It makes residency in Nigeria immaterial to the context of citizenship as no one acquires full rights simply by virtue of such residency.

Specifically, a woman married to a Nigerian foreign to her own place of origin does not acquire the residency rights of her husband's community even if she lives with him in his community all of her life. Similarly, the children of such a marriage do not acquire the residency nor citizenship rights of their mother's place of origin even if they reside in their mother's community for all of their life.

This development contravenes S25(1) of the 1999 Constitution which says that every person born in Nigeria...whose parents or any of grandparents belongs...to a community indigenous to Nigeria shall be a citizen. The use of the term indigenous to a community in Nigeria has often been interpreted to refer to or mean the place of origin (indigeneship) of the father or grandfather and not that of the mother. Such biased interpretation affects the outcome of Chapter III as well as its implementation.

Children and women as nonindegenes are routinely denied basic access to facilities of a community on account of their indigeneship. The other glaring mischief is that the constitution assumes and imposes patriarchy and institutes it over and above other forms of social relations. It ignores the fact that there are minority ethnic groups that are nonpatrilineal. To correct this mischief the constitutional provisions need to be reviewed.

Interestingly, S30 of Chapter III empowers the President to deprive persons of their citizenship but ordinarily, significant segments of the population are denied of basic livelihoods which make their citizenship worthwhile. The approach of Chapter III should be to make citizens of people first and foremost. For instance, the South Africa Constitution has only one clause on citizenship and it comes under the Bill of Rights S20 states that No citizen maybe deprived of citizenship.

This is unlike the Nigerian situation which tells us who can be a citizen but does not guarantee such citizenship. Obviously, any provision on citizenship cannot be read in isolation and there is need in the context of this debate to ask the question: are there provisions in the 1999 Constitution that put some value to the concept of citizenship? In the light of competing notions of citizenship and nationality, how will people of mixed indigeneship find justice? How will women particularly find equality as citizens or persons in their own right, wives, naturalised person; or single parents?

The peculiar case of nonindigenous wives of foreign birth raises other concerns. They cannot claim the indigeneship of any community in Nigeria and as far as their citizenship is concerned it is vague and nonoperational. Their application of their Nigerians status is dependent on their spouses or children and this has implications for the way they are able to live a full and meaningful life as "Nigerians".

As a result, Chapter III of the Nigerian Constitution cannot claim to be founded on nondiscrimination. It is discriminatory in many respects. Any Nigerian Constitution has to acknowledge the diversity and pluralism of the country and seek ways to enhance rather than restrict peoples coexistence. Why should the 1999 Constitution in S15(3) (a) encourage national integration through intermarriages and yet deny the products of such intermarriages the benefits of being citizens within the context of a mixed culture?

This article was contributed by Gender & Development Action, as part of a public debate on constitutional reform.