 This is the breakfast in Plostivia, Africa. We're looking at Nigerian women have thrown the National Assembly Indian numbers to express their disdain on the rejection of women-related bill at the primary, at the plenary, Hubega Pride and Session on Tuesday, a total of 88 senators registered to vote and 44 senators voted yes, while 43 voted no, and one absent. The bill, which was meant to guarantee the inclusivity of women in governance, failed as it could not gather 73 votes needed to be passed. The women's effort that were disappointed despite having the assurances from the leadership of the House on the bill, joining us to discuss all of this this morning is Bosse Iroasi, the Executive Director of Women Rights and Health Project, and also Dr. Princess Olufemi Kayode, the Founder and Team Lead Media Concern Initiative. It's good to have you join us this morning, Bosse Iroasi and Princess Kayode. Thank you very much for having us here. All right, good morning. It's good to have you join us. So how do you feel generally? I'd like to set off on this note. I know that we have a lot to talk about, but how do you feel having had that bill was rejected and all of the concerns? The fact that women over the years have clamored, especially in Nigeria, after 1999, having women been included in elective and appointive positions in Nigeria. I start with Bosse Iroasi. Let me start with Bosse Iroasi. Thank you so much. I want to say that I feel so angry. I felt that we have been abandoned. I felt that we are not even recognized as the people that what we are just men, you might be in that class for the men to be in position. I felt that our dignity is not respected. We are not valued as people who can make contributions to the development of this country. That's how I felt, and I'm still feeling it, because it has felt that I'm still feeling very terrible about it. I'd also like to share your thoughts on that. What's the general feeling when you got that report and seeing women now? This is to Dr. Khayode Olufemi. I've been part of the back room committee working on the campaign. In terms of why we're waiting for them to do their votes, we're part of those who mobilized the women to be present, and maybe the presence of the women would also sort of support. But really, not like those who just said, it's annoying, it's painful to the bone marrow that it's like we're not really set in things in terms of things that can be heard and to participate. It's much more like we are pawns on the chess table for the men. And we are one of those who they move when they want to start campaigns in our political parties where they're going to work with other women, move the women, and they also wear the Ankara and do the dancing. It's much more like we're just pawns, we're just playthings. Our interest is not paramount, it's not important. Our contributions to the nation's national building is not vital for the men. It's not something they've even noted or seen that women have actually been doing something to contribute to national development. And it's not a new thing, but we expect that at this time in generations, in this period, we expected that there would be acceptance, some sort of coming to the draw board and say okay fine, we agree, women can't have this. It's not even a 50-50, it's 35% of the nation for positions. It's thinking okay, a woman can be elected an atomic general in a horse band's state. These are issues that it's painful. You go over there, you marry other women and you come through the other nations. So when it comes to our nation, we are saying that it's not possible. But we think we're interested that people still want to be citizens of Nigeria, even in our present states. So it's something that makes us look at where exactly are we, where exactly are we in our moving forward. Where exactly are we? Because it's like we're nowhere. We're nowhere. We're not confided. It's only when they want to collect the votes from us, that's when it seems that we're important. We're important when it comes to serious issues and exactly what we have shown. And in other words, we are good for the other world. Alright, Bossa Ironze, let me just come to you right now. What does all of this really tell about the inclusivity in Nigeria? Is it a thing that the men not really believe in, in the abilities of women in Nigeria to handle such positions, or just the fact that some men might feel that they are threatened by these women? I think it's about the patriarchal nature of our society. And if you ask them the real reason for it, they cannot tell you, they cannot tell you statistically or in terms of reason as to why they don't want to keep women. That's the opportunity to deal with that. It is about stress. For the father, they are afraid that he will take the positions. And I think that is unfair. Because I don't think why my parents, my father, my mother would send me to school. I have the same brain with the men. I have the same ability. We are even now in terms of diversity and dealing with issues. We think wider than they. So I think it's just about fear of the unknown. And there's no reason to be afraid. Because when you involve your other heart into this, then you will go to the family. When husband and wife participate, when you don't really get the one of maybe the woman to a level, everybody benefits. So I don't see why we have that mouthy way of saying because of my stress. You put me in a position in a box that I shouldn't use my brain. I shouldn't use my capacity. I shouldn't use my dignity must not be respected. So I think it's about fear. And I think they need to step up. They need to, because we are moving on. We are moving to a level where the way technology is going, the way the world is moving. It's not going to help where you just have one set of a group of people just occupying space not giving other opportunities to try. And I think the nation is already paying the price for it. And if we continue like this, I think it's a sorry state. So it's about fear. It's about power and control. It's about the patriarchal nature of our society. It's about they are not yet sure of what they really want. We are not on the table when this conflict starts and we pay the price for it. Look at how many of our children are being killed here and there. I don't think that I will sit on a table where decisions of how to buy massacres outside of people. I will put my hands to that. I don't think I will not vote for a good health system in this country because I know that the maternal mortality rate in this country, we are the worst in the world. I will not put, look at COVID, I think what happens. It brought out the kind of pre-existing gender-based violence that exists in this world. As I was a woman, I will not do that. Because we get back to these men and women and everybody. So why do you sign landals? Alright, let's also bring in Dr. Princess Olufemi Khayade into this. Now, if you look at the question would be, do you think that there's a sincerity, the fact that the proponent of this particular bill, I mean, because we know that it contains all the issues, not necessarily just creating 111 seats for women, but let's stay with that particular element now. You know right now that the country is grappling with the cost of governance and that's on the one hand. And so creating additional 111 seats would be so much for the country. A country where revenue generation is a major issue. Do you think that, first of all, there was a sincerity of peoples with throwing up the creation of 111 seats for women because it's making it look like it's a gender issue. The argument is that you don't have this seats created for the men. And so why don't we rather have women jostle for the 469 seats? It's a combination of the, I mean, combination of both houses of assembly. When you look at the fact that some people have been asking that let's cut down the cost of governance. Dr. Princes. Okay, well, as soon as we're able to hear. We seem to have a poor connection, which you write there, Dr. Princes, if you can hear us. We're hoping that we have a reconnection. But the question here is, if you look at the cost of governance, I mean, it's a lot running two chambers of government. So we still have Bosse, Ronsi, on the line. But do you think that this is actually a good move? Do you think that, first of all, the idea of throwing up this content was actually very okay? The idea of putting out this thought, this ideology of creating. We know that it's amongst other issues. But majorly on it, this is the fact that you have 111 seats that would have been created, especially for women in the house of assembly. I mean, both houses at the end of the day. Do you think there was a sincerity of purpose and that's number one? And also, don't you think that, you know, there's need for us to cut the cost of governance? There is every reason for that to have happened. Because if you look at the people occupying those spaces now, what are they bringing to the table? Now, the population, if you look at the population of men to women, in that set of their food in place, it is discouraging. It is not, how would I put it? It is not putting us in a position to be able to make our impact. So the question I'm going to ask, why is it that when we are not talking about women, that we are bothered about whether it is idea, whether there is resources and all that. So what we are saying, if you look at it, if you spread it across the national assembly and the state's assembly, you will discover that it is very insignificant. So it's not about whether you have the resources. It's not about whether we, if we say we don't have the resources, then let us reduce from demand. And then do not that the environment is political. It's always very, very tough for women. So why don't we create that positions for them so that it gives them the role to participate? I don't think it is something that cannot be done. But you know that the extended law, the law itself generally does not prohibit women from contesting elections. I agree with you, but the environment is conducive for women. Look at it from the party level. How many positions are given to these women for administration and leadership positions at their party level? No. They are only giving welfare secretaries and they are probably to want and clap for them. We want women to occupy and we are already discriminated against. I thought this is a way of saying, come, why don't we make this as a bill? A law that will give that section. What we can do? We are doing research on the precedents who are said to be to the south, to be to the north. Why can't we also give positions for the women? We are not looking at whether there are resources. There are resources that we have. What are they doing with it at the present level? Are we feeling it? All right. Dr. Femi, Dr. Femi, Dr. Oloufemi Karede, are you still there? I just want to throw a question in right now. Since you have identified right now that women are not really given maybe much positions or sensitive positions at the party level, don't you really think that these issues should actually be tackled head on from the party level? Because if women are given better opportunities at the party level, they will get better representation even at the National Assembly and other public office positions in the country. Actually, that's part of the argument. That's part of the argument that at party level there's supposed to be a percentage of women at the leadership level. So it's already on ground as part of the argument that I'm part of the demands as well that party level we should have at least also about the 5% at party level. So it's still one of the things that we brought up on the table. Knowing through that, when women are more involved at party level leadership that will also impact on the electoral positions also in terms of pushing for the agenda for women. Because really just like you think that when we are looking at different things happening in the country, women and children have the ability at least to be taught of thinking of solutions and we are the ones who are the worst hit at every decision we make. So it's not time for the men to know. I think it's time. Whatever intimidation they are feeling it's time to let them guard. We are developing the country together as one people. It's not really so much about the women and the men. It's saying that everybody every gender is important that we participate to an equal level. That is really moving forward. They have had the country for how long? We are not moving forward. The so-called giant of Africa is really more than this like in the world in world development. We are seeing it. We are seeing it every day. We are there at this time. And that is why it's time to say no, something has been done in this government. It's not in the next 5 to 10 years again before we bring this issue up first. Okay. So Dr. Khayode, would you say that this issue right now is an issue of having, I mean, it's a problem that the law can actually solve or it's a cultural issue. If you look at it, because at the end of the day, the target would be gender inequality, especially not having women being included in the entire process. I mean, we are looking at the fact that there is a decline of citizenship to foreign-born husbands of a Nigerian woman and a Nigerian man's foreign-born wife gets automatic citizenship. You also have the fact that denying Nigerians in diaspora the right to vote amongst others. I mean, these issues are, you also have the denying the women the ability to take indigentship of their husband's state after 5 years of being together. There was a clear case in Khrushchev state where you had the time where the chief, I mean, the chief judge up until he was ratified by the messy of the governor, current governor in the state. But so do you think that this is an issue of the law or is an issue of culture and we should be trying to address the cultural bias and, you know, all the sentiments and beliefs that we have over time because it feels like the law might not necessarily solve the problem. Justin has mentioned that maybe we should be addressing this issue from the angle of the party level because the law itself does not prohibit women from contesting. And so if you look at it, it's just a perception that the people hold about women, you know, in Nigeria. Yeah, but you see, if we make it a law, then we have what to stand upon. That is why if we do not make it, you know, if we don't make it something that is legal, then we don't have any stand points to even fight for it. So that's why there has to be that makes it that when you are married to a man and you are served in that state and this could also be for the men. So it's not so much about women alone. You have served in a state in the judiciary up to where you got to the point where it is your capacity to become chief judge and you are denied because you are not from the state. But you have married, you have lived, you have served the state. So it's an example of a man who is married to a woman from another part of the country. If we keep saying we are one country, but we see this issue of indigeneity come out. It's not like the mutation thing. You get to be north, you get to the south, to the south-west. These are issues that we as a country need to get over. And if we don't come from the point of the law, it comes an issue. So when it's grounded in the law then there is a demand to say, oh, the law says so-and-so. And then it's entrenched in the constitution to become something that we can stand on to say, yes, we can fight for. So that is exactly why it is there. We go to other countries, we marry them and we become drug addicts. We have our own and we have citizenship of those countries. And then they come to our own and we say, no, that's what I said. It's very interesting. This is Nigeria that we are talking about. That's right. We're not thinking anywhere in terms of where we're talking about the emissions of the world. But yet, we are still saying that whoever marries us, whether male or female, cannot become a citizen of our country. So do that. Do that. Do that. These are real issues that why isn't it entrenched in our constitution? Don't forget the constitution is a thing that holds the country together. We stand on it and be able to say, this is what the constitution says. What can the people practice what they do not believe? I mean, even the things that we even do believe how many times have we implemented it? I'm thinking that we need to get to a point where we actually have a reorientation and have a point where everyone is seen as the same. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, you also have some people arguing that this might just not be it might just be a gender bias issue. Because if we are proposing a law to create 111 seats for women and did we create that we have a special law to create a space for men as well? If we're talking about gender equality now. Okay, we've had the 400 plus seats and you can tell the number of women. They're up to three, up to five. Who are having access? The law would help women to be able to stand. It gives no women the push to say to find we have something that backs us up to take the leap. Meanwhile, on the issue of the bias and the issue of culture and the issue of orientation. The law also will help governments to put when we have a national organization will also help to push certain programs to go forth ahead. Because without that law you will not find us doing propaganda or an enlightenment campaign to say women give women the opportunity. So there's a kind of legal framework to help push those other things. And in terms of doing for people to do different media that we have or the multimedia that we have to do. But the issue is really as much as we stay there with the bias it is time that as a country we need to have the legal framework. We need to have something that we as women can go on to. Because we don't have anything to hold on to. All the key positions any position you hear any position you hear women have it has something to do with when it comes to party politics you see the women. When Ankara and dancing and carrying whatever it is they have to carry it is not so okay when we have we have capacity to play certain roles that will also push our nation forward. This is our nation building our nation development it's not so much about women it's about giving a fair playing ground for everyone. Alright Thank you Dr.Princess but now both the urgency let's bring you also into this conversation a lot has been said concerning giving a legal perspective to return the cultural issues but I must really ask right now because sometimes there is this perceive I don't use the word hatred or lack of support concerning women for themselves. Do you really think can women ordinarily support each other to the extent that they really want to push that they get all those positions that we have been talking about ordinarily I have been to some quarters when I have pushed for this issue do you think women can manage the country better than men in terms of the state and the presidency. Some women will like I'm not sure we are ready yet to take the hems of affairs. Do you really think women ordinarily would actually support the average women to move forward in politics and governance in the country? Thank you very much. Those are usually stereotypes and narratives that we have had over years that women don't support women but we are trying to prove that we can support women. What you have been seeing since two days now have shown that those people that are out there that are glamoring women that are out there are not glamoring for themselves. They are talking about women in general because to be leaders what happens to one woman any place happens to us anywhere we are. So I don't think we should follow that narrative that women are not ready. What does it require to be ready? What do the men have that they are in positions that we cannot? Most of the time they deliberately put us in a level where we cannot. For example if I'm not giving a platform an environment to be able to express myself to be able to make contributions, how would you know that I'm ready? How would you know that my what was in the choir have been trained and have all the requirements to be there as a human being. Not even as a woman. So what should I be restricted because I'm a woman. So I think that we shouldn't follow that. We are ever ready to take up positions. And I keep saying the natural instinct of us as people in the way even in our homes in yes the man is the head of the house but you see when they are engaged in so many critical issues they still come back to you know to come back to doing those other issues that they cannot do. So I think I believe that we should that narrative should not move forward. We are capable we just like saying that Okoji Wala is not shouldn't be where she is we just like we are saying that that lady that is being done there with you at the television should not be there but there are so many who are looking up to her say when I grow up I want to be like and so they are saying no you cannot because that environment is restricted for so many people. We are having all men who are coming to say they want to go into into positions where you have young young young people used in this country that are in this country they are young ladies that are doing first work outside this country and yet we are saying that they cannot be in position just because they are women. That is a serious bias and I don't think I want to because any woman that comes out to we have seen people who are not even well educated. They are holding positions and leaving people who have gone to school who are doing great work. We have people who is in deputy secretary general of the United Nations and we are saying that she cannot be a leader in this country. What are you talking about? You are saying that a doctor that I am searching to pay her school bills and put her in a good country, she cannot leave just because there is a position specifically for other sets of people. I mean we have seen this division coming from religion, ethnicity, gender and sex and I am not saying no we are not agreeing to that. Women are capable and they can lead. Thank you so much for being part of the show. We do appreciate your time with us this morning on the breakfast. All right. We also had joining us Doctor apprentice who spoke intently concerning this issue of gender equality and pushing the cause of women forward. We do appreciate your time ladies. Thank you so much for being part of the show. Thank you for having us. Have a great day. Justin, the irony is that the International Women's Day 8th March is actually the International Women's Day and the month of March generally is tagged as Women's Month. The theme for this year is breaking the bias and now you see all of this happening at this point in time is a big irony. But the National Assembly, the law makers are saying we are not going and maybe just maybe the women need to continue to push and push until they have a breakthrough. Yes, and we will take a quick break right now and we will come back and talk about the electoral act that was just passed, you know, assented to by the president, but he wanted a particular provision to be adjusted in a moment to join us today.