Benjamin Kalu, deputy speaker of the house of representatives, has withdrawn the controversial indigeneship bill that was introduced in the lower legislative chamber. The proposed bill, sponsored by Kalu alongside six fellow lawmakers, aimed to eliminate restrictive and discriminatory practices surrounding indigeneship in Nigeria.
THE BILL
The constitution alteration bill sought to broaden the criteria for recognizing individuals as indigenes of a state. Specifically, it aimed to amend sections 31 and 318 of the 1999 constitution to foster inclusivity, social integration, and equal access to opportunities across state lines.
Key provisions of the proposal included allowing a Nigerian citizen to be regarded as an indigene if they were either born and have continuously lived in that state for at least ten years or if they have resided in a local government area (LGA) within that state for a minimum of ten consecutive years, supported by evidence of tax payments during that period.
Additionally, the bill sought to enable qualified individuals to apply to the local government chairman for a certificate of indigeneship, formalizing their status. It also aimed to empower women married to indigenes of another state for at least five years to be recognized as indigenes, granting them equal rights and privileges, especially in areas like employment and political appointments. Women would retain this status even in the event of divorce or their spouse’s death, provided they had children from the marriage—or chose to keep their indigeneship status.
THE WITHDRAWAL
In a statement on Tuesday, Kalu attributed the withdrawal of the bill to “concerns and constructive feedback” from various stakeholders. Emphasizing the importance of public input, he stated, “Every legislative proposal should reflect the aspirations of the people.”
Kalu, who also chairs the house committee on constitution review, noted that the constitution review process remains an open, inclusive, and participatory exercise, ensuring that no proposal is advanced without adequate dialogue and consensus-building.
He further referenced a critical report by the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS), which warned that the bill could lead to issues of multiple citizenship. The report advised state houses of assembly to enact laws enabling settlers in different states to enjoy the same rights and privileges as indigenes.
“States should make laws that would allow settlers to benefit from the same rights and privileges enjoyed by indigenes without any form of discrimination, as rightly provided for in the constitution,” Kalu quoted from the institute’s recommendations.
Despite the commendable objectives of the bill, Kalu concluded that these goals could be achieved through a different legal framework, asserting that passing the bill as it stood could lead to challenges regarding double or multiple indigenship in the future.