In a recent development, the House of Representatives has called on the Federal Government to pause the implementation of the Samoa Agreement until all contentious clauses are clarified and addressed. This motion, backed by 88 members, was driven by a concern over certain provisions in the agreement.
Representative Aliyu Madaki, who introduced the motion on Tuesday, raised alarms about the clause promoting “gender equality,” suggesting it could be a disguise for violating the country’s moral values. The House has tasked its relevant committees to thoroughly investigate these controversial aspects of the agreement.
The Samoa Agreement, signed between the Federal Government and the European Union, has stirred significant controversy. Critics argue it implies recognition of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) rights, conflicting with Nigeria’s 2014 law against same-sex marriages and gay relationships enacted under President Goodluck Jonathan.
During a press conference on Saturday, Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, Atiku Bagudu, along with the Minister of Information, Mohammed Idris, reassured that Nigeria would not commit to any agreement contradicting its constitution or the cultural and religious values of its diverse population. Bagudu emphasized that the agreement aims to enhance food security and foster inclusive economic development, among other critical areas.
The Samoa Agreement, signed last November in Apia, Samoa, involves the European Union, its 27 member states, and 79 member states of the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS).
The contentious clause on LGBT rights was replaced with “gender equality” in the final document. Article 2, clause 5, now states that the parties will “systematically promote a gender perspective and ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed across all policies.”
This move has sparked a wave of online reactions, highlighting the ongoing debate over the agreement’s implications for Nigeria’s legal and cultural frameworks.
However, the FG is insisting that there is no LGBTQ compliance clause in the agreement.
