Nigerians, it would appear, are always on a lookout for opportunities to “create a storm in a tea cup” or a “mountain out of a mole.” For a week or so, the media, both traditional and social, have been awash with news concerning the “Samoa Agreement” as signed by the Nigerian government.
A section of the media/clergy contended that the Agreement obligated its signees to recognise the sexual orientation rights of individuals to be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+), and more (+) such as a “non-binary” etc. Some went further to allege that government was preparing towards legalisation of same-gender marriages among the LGBTQ+ community in Nigeria, ultimately.
From nowhere, a section of the society went to town with the accusations that the government had signed to subscribe to the practice of LGBTQ+ in Nigeria which in their considered options run counter to peoples’ moral, cultural and religious values, which should be stopped at all cost!
Truth was that many of the traducers of the government had not read the Samoo Agreement because there was no reference whatsoever to the acronym “LGBTQ+,) in the entire text. When that was pointed, then they made recourse to the existence of the word “gender rights,” maybe as a second thought, to maintain their unfounded claim/stand.
Unfortunately, too, the use of the phrase “gender rights” has been an integral part of the UN System for about half a century to date. Since the need to improve the lots of womenfolk, dawned on humanity in the 70s and 80s, one of the lexicons so adopted include “gender rights.” This represents a mellowed version of earlier ones such as ‘gender equality’, “what a man can do, a woman can do (even better),” etc.
Other euphemisms and/or diplomatic languages were brought in later just to assuage apprehensions and sensibilities with the use of “gender equity,” instead of gender equality, or the “affirmative” action. It was also around the time that some women (and men) too started using such phrases as “Chairperson” when the occasion was being chaired by a woman, instead of the generic “Chairman.” Most people understood these paradigm shifts without imputing a foul play.
Furthermore, most of the programme support documents (PSD) by both multilateral and bilateral doner agencies are replete with the word “gender,” “gender rights,” “gender mainstreaming,” and “gender support,”. These aspirations towards the development of the women segment culminated in the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, where nations affirmed their commitment to “ensure greater equality and opportunities for women and men, girls and boys.”
It went on to recommend to UN member nations to strive to set aside 30% of national endeavours to women for a start. First ladies from member countries of the UN including some from the Muslim countries of the Middle East and Asia, were in attendance. In fact, sections of the women activists have since been calling for more, out of enthusiasm. The more ambitious ones aspired for a 50:50 ratio between men and women by the year 2020, christened 2020-5050.! Those conversant with the provisions of MDG, SDG documents of the UN, and also that of bilateral donors such as USAID (USA), JICA (Japan), GIZ (Germany), QC (Qatar Charity) including the World Bank/IMF can attest to this.
At the home front, the various national vision frameworks articulated by successive governments, which were basically mutants/clones, also made copious use of the vocabularies and phrases. The Vision 2010, 2020, the NEEDs patterned their contents along the donor-countries’ approaches/frameworks as well. The goals and objectives of defunct programmes like the Better Life for Rural Women (BLRW), FEAP, FSP, WID, Child Care Trust, WOTCLEF etc in Nigeria, were largely gender-biased.
Now, some are calling for the interrogation of the definitions of both words, gender and right, in what looks like an attempt to split hair. The fact remains that the definitions from various self- respecting sources have “largely” defined them with reference to “roles,” “responsibilities,” and “opportunities” in domestic/household and national settings. And for “rights” on its own, it is a neutral word.
The Collins English defines gender as “the state of being male or female in relation to social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women.” The Oxford Dictionary considers gender to be male of female especially with reference to “social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of ‘identities’ that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
May be it’s the “other identities” that poisoned the understanding of the concept. In climes where mutual distrust wasn’t part of the citizens’ DNA, imputing “where applicable” to references made to “other identities” would have sufficed since the document is a global one. The language of treaties, coventions, and international relations are usually read and understood in both spirit and letter. For, neither spirit or letter alone meets diverse expectations.
If the vehement opposition to the Samoa Agreement has been directed in equal measure against vices that the Almighty Himself hates such as corruption, injustice, transgression/fasadi (immorality, falsehood, exploitation, manipulation) and nepotism in society, Nigeria would not have been this “devasted.” Turning one’s back against these iniquities too is a way of soliciting for God’s mercy in the Hereafter, but for which many of those up in arms against the Samoa Agreement are seemingly, ready to dispense with, in preference for selling the false image of piety to the World. A sheer hypocrisy?
In any case, this is Nigeria. A land of enormous chasm and schism where mutual suspicion has been elevated to an art form. A society that has so programmed its citizens to generally perceive more negativity than positivity in national life and conspiracy theories as a national pastime.
The uproar against the Samoa Agreement is the latest in the series. Something new may crop to keep people talking once more in a few day’s time, thus consigning Samoa Agreement to the archive. One wishes, Nigeria is a productively engaging nation where citizens shall be busy making contributions towards nation building instead of finding reasons to pull her down under self-serving guises.
A.G.Abubakar agbarewa@gmail.com
Leave a Reply