Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, has withdrawn the controversial Indigeneship Bill which he co-sponsored with six other lawmakers.
The proposed legislation aimed to amend sections 31 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution, seeking to redefine and broaden the criteria for recognising a person as an indigene of a state in Nigeria. The goal was to eliminate discriminatory practices surrounding indigeneship and promote national integration, equal access to opportunities, and inclusivity.
Highlights of the Proposed Bill
The now-withdrawn amendment proposed that a Nigerian citizen would qualify as an indigene of a state under any of the following conditions:
- If they were born in the state and had lived there continuously for at least 10 years.
- If they were not born in the state, but had resided in a local government area within the state for a minimum of 10 consecutive years, with proof of tax payment during that period.
Additionally, the bill proposed:
- Such individuals could apply to the local government chairman for a Certificate of Indigeneship to formalise their status.
- A woman married to an indigene of another state for at least five years would also be recognised as an indigene of her husband’s state, with full rights and privileges, including eligibility for public office and employment.
- Even after divorce or the death of her spouse, such a woman would retain her indigene status, whether or not she had children from the marriage—provided she chose to do so.
Reasons for Withdrawal
In a statement on Tuesday, Kalu said he decided to withdraw the bill after receiving “constructive feedback and concerns” from stakeholders. He emphasised that any constitutional amendment must reflect the collective aspirations of the Nigerian people.
“The Constitution review process remains an open, inclusive, and participatory exercise, and no provision or proposal will be pursued without adequate dialogue and consensus-building,” he said.
The Deputy Speaker, who also chairs the House Committee on Constitution Review, cited a report by the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS), which criticised the bill for potentially leading to multiple or dual indigeneship statuses.
According to Kalu, NILDS recommended that state houses of assembly should enact laws to ensure that non-indigenes (settlers) residing in a state enjoy equal rights and privileges without constitutional amendments that could introduce legal ambiguities.
“Though the bill seeks to achieve some commendable objectives, this can be achieved through the enactment of laws at the state level. If this bill is passed, it would pose challenges over time, especially on the issue of double or multiple indigeneship,” the institute advised.
Kalu’s decision to withdraw the bill underscores the delicate balance required in addressing historical inequalities while preserving the integrity and cohesion of Nigeria’s federal structure.