What Happened?
In July 2024, Senator Jibrin Isah of Kogi East District presented a new bill to repeal the VAPP Act of 2015. This was not the first time the bill had been presented. In April 2022, the bill to repeal and re-enact the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015 (SB.926) scaled its second reading in the Senate.
What is the Bill About?
The VAPP Act was enacted in 2015 by Goodluck Jonathan and has since been domesticated in many states. Its aim is to prohibit all forms of violence against persons in private and public life. The domestication of the bill took over seven years to reach a staggering number of 19 states, and even today, it is only domesticated in 34 out of 36 states.
Why Was the Bill Repealed?
Senator Jibrin argued that the compensation provisions for victims of violence were insufficient. Given Nigeria’s current economic conditions, he proposed increasing the fines and imprisonment penalties in the Act to serve as more effective deterrents.
The senator called for a complete reform of the Act, arguing that violence alone isn’t sufficient to prove abuse; intent must also be established.
Here are some things he hoped to change with the repeal of the bill:
- That the punishment of fines and imprisonment is too minimal to have any meaningful deterrent effect, particularly given current economic realities.
- That the offense of rape in the section needs to be clarified to distinguish between the absence of consent and consent obtained by fraud, undue influence, and other unlawful means.
- That the provisions for compensation of victims of violence are inadequate.
- That the punishment for the grievous nature of certain offenses, specifically section 22 (1), is insufficient. In view of the rampant cases of chemical attacks, offenders under this section should not be given an option of a fine. Likewise, the term for imprisonment needs to be reviewed upwards.
- That the derogatory expression “mentally retarded” used in section 28 (4) of the Act should be replaced with more appropriate language.
- That there are errors in cross-referencing, which translate to difficulties in implementation.
- That the use of the terms “shall” and “may” in some sections does not convey any legislative intent.
- That the Act makes references to legislation that has been repealed. For instance, section 40 references the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990.
- The senator also distinguished between “absence of consent” and “consent obtained by fraud, undue influence, and other unlawful means.” This stance suggests that the passed law was deceitfully presented. In his bill, he states, “In the face of opposition to its obvious gender-biased nature, the promoters resumed it, tinkered with some of its provisions, introduced seemingly gender-neutral language, and successfully obtained passage.”
What is Happening Now?
President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters for further legislative action and asked for a report back in six weeks (by the 21st of August).
