A look at the sexual harassment bill

One thing that is never lacking in Nigeria is action. Whether for good or bad, there will always be certain action in the country, at any time. When the particular action is in place, it becomes a trending agenda of sorts.
Often, the action may not go beyond attracting initial headlines. The essence may also not be properly defined or explained. But while it lasts, it becomes the topic for the season and fizzles out after a while. And life goes on.
For the greater part of last week, the dominant issue in public domain was the murderous invasion of Nimbo, Enugu community, by criminally-minded Fulani herdsmen. The incident, which took place late April, left over 50 natives dead and more wounded.
In the hysteria of the time, many pronouncements were made by state and federal authorities. Enugu State governor, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, who visited the devastated community, got more devastated by the sight of broken limbs and dead bodies. And he wept.
From Abuja, President Muhammadu Buhari threatened tough actions against the marauders.
But by the close of last week, no record of any arrest in connection with the cowardly incident was known. There really, may be none, after all. It is the injured and bereaved in Nimbo that will carry on with their lot. And the nation moves on.
As fate would have it, there is already an agenda for another ad-hoc national convocation. This time around, it is coming from the Senate with its bill against sexual harassment in the country’s institution of higher learning.
According to the story surrounding the bill, it was envisioned as part of measures to prohibit sexual harassment of students in institutions of higher learning, and bring to an end a major distraction to academic pursuit on campuses.
The bill proposes a compulsory five-year jail term for any lecturer who sexually harasses a student, while heads of institutions of learning where such activities take place would be held liable too.
By the proposed law, vice chancellors of universities, rectors of polytechnics and chief executives of sundry institutions would go to jail for two years for failing to act within a week of complaints of sexual harassments.
The bill, introduced by the senator representing Delta Central, Ovie Omo-Agege, is said to have received sponsorship of other senators from different parts of the country.
Omo-Agege, the only senator elected on the platform of Labour Party (LP), explained the essence of the bill.
“We need to protect our students, particularly our daughters, from sexual perverts who use unethical and coercive means to instil fear in them and compel acquiescence to sexual liaisons,” he said.
The senator disclosed that the bill was a product of research commissioned on the issue, stressing that it has become imperative to restore faith and decency to the country’s learning environment.
Coming at a time academic pursuits in the universities seem to have given way for moral depravity and licentious engagements, Omo-Agege deserves commendation from all. He has, in a way, taken the bull by the horn.
Sexual immorality and deficiency in learning are two major issues currently plaguing the nation’s higher institutions. Gone are the days when students of tertiary institutions were easily identified by their cute dressing culture and commendable comportment. Gone are the days when college students exuded knowledge in their fields of study. Gone are the days when the relationship between the lecturer and the student was strictly defined.
These virtues appear to have gone with the winds. There are still responsible lecturers and committed students, no doubt. But the figure is few, if not totally insignificant. The trend now is essentially more of trade by barter. The girls trade with their bodies, while the teachers trade with their marks, and trade off their respect. The boys, in some cases, come in as pimps.
Some explain this illicit liaison as consensual. But is it, really? Harassment may not necessarily come with manifest force. It may be subtle but aimed at coercing somebody into an action that he or she would not indulge in, ordinarily.
For now, it is not known if the bill before the Senate covers the entire gamut of the inane relationship. It is also not known how far the bill intends to protect victims of the dastardly act, aside encouraging them to seek legal redress.
Of course, it may not be certain how far the bill will go in the upper lawmaking house. If it survives the expected intrigues in the chamber, it will remain a mystery. But if it dies at any stage, it will not come as a surprise.
Some of the senators and the university teachers are guilty of the same offence. While the lecturers withhold their marks to have their way, the lawmakers flaunt their influence for the same action. There is hardly any difference between a lawmaker who engages in juvenile marriage and the college teacher who forces his way through a student under his care. None of the liaisons, strictly speaking, is consensual. The same goes for lawmakers who demand sex from their constituents as condition for attending to them. They are products of intimidation; they are satanic and morally condemnable.
So, in going about the bill, the senators must look inwards and engage in serious introspection. This may also be the time for the lawmakers to realise the full import of the gender equality bill that they mocked at and threw away with ignominy. It should also provide the sponsors of the rejected bill the opportunity to do the necessary homework and reintroduce it.
The second attempt should make the senators understand that the gender equality bill is not aimed at displacing them from their position in the family. It is not for contest over power in the family but about empowering our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters. By that, they will be in position to deal with the amorous antics of the ravenous lecturers.