By O. G. Chukkol
The Law seems to be bias against ladies and in favour of men. A man can impregnate a lady and still go free by merely denying responsibility.
Ladies you see, the Law says, he who asserts must prove. In other words, if you allege that a man is responsible for your pregnancy, you must prove it. Mere assertion is not enough. Lawyers in this situation would refer you to sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and to many decided cases. Though the burden of proof may be light if you have several witnesses to give oral testimony in support of your case, but even at that, I just hope they can stand cross examination in matters of this nature.
And if you think after giving birth to the child you will sue your man and ask court to conduct DNA test on him, forget it. The reason is because though in the case of Olayinka Vs Adeparusi & Anor (2011) LPELR 8691 CA it was held that our laws permit DNA test in proof of paternity, the same court recently held in the case of Anozia Vs. Nnani & Anor. (2015) 8 NWLR (pt.1461) 241 that such test can be conducted only with the permission of the man if the man is above the age of 18 (an adult).
Furthermore, it was held in that same Anozia Vs. Nnani that conducting DNA test on a party to a case on the application of the other party would amount to resort to the coercive powers of the court to compel her adversary to supply her with the possible evidence she needs to prove her case. In other words, if the court is to embark on this exercise (of ordering a man to be subjected to a DNA test to prove that he was responsible for the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of a child), the court will be leaving its role of adjudication to play the role of inquisition. The court is a trial court and not an investigative agency or body. It would mean a lady is asking the court to assist her to procure the evidence which she requires to prove her case against a man.
The court added in Anozia’s case that it would amount to breach of an adult’s constitutional right to privacy for him to be subjected to DNA test.
Funny and Ironically enough, it is easier for a man to claim paternity of a child if the paternity is attributed to a different person. In other words, a man can sue a lady to claim a child if the lady mentions a different person’s name as the father of her child. Interestingly, he can apply for DNA test to be conducted on himself and the child for paternity of the child to be determined. The reason why law will agree with the man and conduct the DNA test is because the child he is claiming is not an adult yet.
I find the law very funny and quite illogical. What the courts seem to be suggesting is that a child does not have the right to privacy. This reasoning to my mind goes contrary to section 37 of the constitution which gives every citizen the right to privacy irrespective of his age or maturity. However, the position of the courts may be premised on the need to always protect the best interest of the child. But generally I would have preferred the law to allow men to be subjected to DNA test with or without their consent in that such is also in the best interest of the child. Though some men may disagree with my opinion by saying that ladies can abuse it and subject many guys to unnecessary DNA tests which would lead to embarrassment to innocent men.
Whatever perspective one may look at the whole situation from, the law is always the law irrespective of its harshness. It always stands until it is changed either by the legislature or the judiciary through judicial activism. Since the law doesn’t seem to favour ladies and ladies are always at the receiving end of “unwanted pregnancies”, that is, stigma and frustration among others, they need to shine their eyes.
I know the write up is too long but permit me to make a quick and short remark on the controversial statement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR Part 1418 Page 384 to the effect that where a certificate of birth has been issued, evidencing the father of a person, the content of the certificate is conclusive proof that the person named therein (in the absence of proof that the certificate was not genuine) is the father of such a person. It does not matter who gives the information before it was recorded in the birth certificate. Should ladies then adopt this as a device of attributing paternity of children to stubborn guys? With profound respect to the learned justices this statement is too sweeping. I should not be misunderstood as disagreeing with the learned justices, I am only of the view that the statement is too general. I wouldn’t advise any lady to rely on this Supreme Court decision. This decision was based on its peculiar circumstance, so to my mind, adopting it may only lead to embarrassments to ladies.
O. G. Chukkol is a final year student, Faculty of Law, ABU, Zaria and may be reached via oliverchukkol@gmail.com or 08032470318
