By Oliver Omoredia
![image](/2021/07/Justice-Ejembi-Eko-1.jpg")
![image](/2021/07/lawpv.jpg")
Introduction
![image](/2021/07/escrow-service1.jpg")
Recently, the Nigerian social media space witnessed a barrage of
comments when a CCTV footage surfaced online showing an
unidentified lady setting in motion a fire in a branch of the
Ebeano Supermarket in Abuja which led to the destruction of goods
worth several millions of naira. In the days that followed, the
suspected arsonist was apprehended and interrogated by persons
reported to be officers of the Nigerian Police Force. More
interestingly, the suspect was established to be a Nine-year-old
girl, and the video of the child’s interrogation has generated
significant attention on social media.
One point that however seems to be lost in all the conversations
on the story is the apparent violation of the right of the child by
the publication of the video interrogation. In this social-media
age we live in, it is not uncommon that an attempt to correct a
wrong could lead to a wrong in itself. Therefore, this article
seeks to draw attention to the violation of the right of the child
suspect by the video publication of her interrogation by the
officers of the Nigerian Police Force, while also addressing the
questions relating to the procedural issues arising from the
facts.
AN OFFENCE UNDER LAW
As a pre-liminary point, the facts of the case, if true as we
know them to be, present the establishment of an offence. Since the
offence in question was committed in Abuja, recourse must be made
to the provisions of the Penal Code, which is the
applicable substantive criminal law in the FCT, Abuja.
Section 336 and Section 337 of the Penal Code
provides that
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or an explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause damage to any property shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine.
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or an
explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is
ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as
a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life or for any less term and shall also be liable
to fine.”
It is clear from the above provisions, without need for a voyage
of interpretation, that the above law imputes criminal liability to
the suspect from the facts as we know them to be.
However, the Penal Code in itself admits the possibility of
criminal offences being committed by children, and thus provides
under Section 50:
“No act is an offence which is done (a)
by a child under seven years of age; or (b) by a child above seven
years of age but under twelve years of age who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequence of that act.”
By the above provision, the Penal Code is simply saying that if
a Child under the age of 12 years who does not understand the
nature and consequences of an Act commits an offence, that child
has not committed an offence. Therefore, the Child will not be held
criminally liable.
Admittedly, the above requirement of the Penal Code may apply to
the suspect who has been established to be Nine years old, but it
will become a subject of argument whether or not she understood the
nature and consequences of the act. Hence, the matter will first
need to be tried in Court, and to do this the Child will need to be
investigated; a matter which comes within the procedural
requirement of criminal justice administration!
What I have labored to say above is that, when a Child commits
an offence, before establishing that the Child committed the
substantive offence, the procedure for investigation must comply
with the procedural requirements of the law! This aspect is where
the Police interrogation video falls short of the legal standards
expected under law.
A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY
The procedural requirements in the administration of criminal
justice in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, is set forth under
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
The Act provides on Child offenders as follows:
Section 452. (1) Where a child is alleged to
have committed an offence, the provisions of the
Child Rights Act shall apply.
Now turning to the Child’s Rights Act 2003, the
Act provides under Section 204 that:
No child shall be subjected to the criminal justice process or
to criminal sanctions, but a child alleged to have
committed an act which would constitute a criminal offence if he
were an adult shall be subjected only to the child justice system
and processes set out in this Act.
Particularly Section 205 of the Child’s Rights
Act provides for the protection of the privacy of a
Child and states that:
(1) The right of the child to privacy specified in
section 8 of this Act shall be respected at all
stages of child justice administration in order to avoid harm being
caused to the child by undue publicity or by the process of
labeling. (2) Accordingly, no
information that may lead to the identification of a child offender
shall be published. (3) Records of a child
offender shall‐ (a) be kept strictly
confidential and closed to third parties;
(b) made accessible only to persons directly concerned
with the disposition of the case at hand or other duly authorised
persons; and (c) not be used in adult
proceedings subsequent cases involving the same child
offender.
Furthermore, the Act requires under its Section
207 provides for a specialisation within the Nigeria
Police Force for the investigation of offences committed by
Children. The Section states that:
(1) There shall be established, in the Nigeria Police Force, a
specialised unit of the Force, to be known as the Specialised
Children Police Unit (in this Act referred to as the “Unit”) which
shall consist of police officers who‐ (a)
frequently or exclusively deal with children; or
(b) are primarily engaged in the prevention of child
offences, (2) The Unit shall be charged with the following
functions, that is‐ (a) the prevention and
control of child offences; (b) the apprehension of child
offenders; (c) the investigation of child
offences; and (d) such other functions as
may be referred to the Unit by this Act or by regulations made
under this Act or by any other enactment. (3) Members
of the Unit shall be continually trained and instructed specially
for the functions conferred on the Unit under subsection (2) of
this section.
A LIMITED RECOURSE AGAINST THE
PARENTS
Finally, from the facts of the case as we know them, and with
the protection afforded to the child under law, one would wonder
the recourse that the Supermarket may have, considering that the
offender in question is incapable of paying the financial cost of
her actions. On this point is is necessary to note that the Child’s
Rights Acts gives a Judge the power to, upon conviction of the
child, impose fine or damages against the parents of a Child
offender. Particularly Section 223 provides
several methods of dealing with Child offenders including:
- dismissing the charge;
- placing the child under care order, guidance order and
supervision order, including‐
- discharging the child offender and placing him under the
supervision of a supervision officer; or - committing the child offender by means of a corrective order to
the care of a guardian and supervision of a relative or any other
fit person; or - sending the child offender by means of a corrective order to an
approved accommodation or approved institution; or
- ordering the child offender to participate in group
counseling and similar activities; - or ordering the parent or guardian
of the child offender to (i) pay a fine,
damages, compensation or costs; or (ii)
give security of his good behaviour; or
(iii) enter into a recognisance to take proper care of
him and exercise proper control over him;
IN CONCLUSION
It is necessary to note always that the offences by Children and
the treatment of Child offenders are matters which are of legal
concern and cannot be treated as a matter by the way. It is for the
protection of the Child’s rights that these provisions have been
enacted and it is necessary for law enforcement officers to be
trained on the need to comply with these laws rather than breach
them.
By Oliver Omoredia
Introduction
Recently, the Nigerian social media space witnessed a barrage of
comments when a CCTV footage surfaced online showing an
unidentified lady setting in motion a fire in a branch of the
Ebeano Supermarket in Abuja which led to the destruction of goods
worth several millions of naira. In the days that followed, the
suspected arsonist was apprehended and interrogated by persons
reported to be officers of the Nigerian Police Force. More
interestingly, the suspect was established to be a Nine-year-old
girl, and the video of the child’s interrogation has generated
significant attention on social media.
One point that however seems to be lost in all the conversations
on the story is the apparent violation of the right of the child by
the publication of the video interrogation. In this social-media
age we live in, it is not uncommon that an attempt to correct a
wrong could lead to a wrong in itself. Therefore, this article
seeks to draw attention to the violation of the right of the child
suspect by the video publication of her interrogation by the
officers of the Nigerian Police Force, while also addressing the
questions relating to the procedural issues arising from the
facts.
AN OFFENCE UNDER LAW
As a pre-liminary point, the facts of the case, if true as we
know them to be, present the establishment of an offence. Since the
offence in question was committed in Abuja, recourse must be made
to the provisions of the Penal Code, which is the
applicable substantive criminal law in the FCT, Abuja.
Section 336 and Section 337 of the Penal Code
provides that
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or an explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause damage to any property shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable
to fine.
“Whoever commits mischief by fire or an
explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is
ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as
a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life or for any less term and shall also be liable
to fine.”
It is clear from the above provisions, without need for a voyage
of interpretation, that the above law imputes criminal liability to
the suspect from the facts as we know them to be.
However, the Penal Code in itself admits the possibility of
criminal offences being committed by children, and thus provides
under Section 50:
“No act is an offence which is done (a)
by a child under seven years of age; or (b) by a child above seven
years of age but under twelve years of age who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequence of that act.”
By the above provision, the Penal Code is simply saying that if
a Child under the age of 12 years who does not understand the
nature and consequences of an Act commits an offence, that child
has not committed an offence. Therefore, the Child will not be held
criminally liable.
Admittedly, the above requirement of the Penal Code may apply to
the suspect who has been established to be Nine years old, but it
will become a subject of argument whether or not she understood the
nature and consequences of the act. Hence, the matter will first
need to be tried in Court, and to do this the Child will need to be
investigated; a matter which comes within the procedural
requirement of criminal justice administration!
What I have labored to say above is that, when a Child commits
an offence, before establishing that the Child committed the
substantive offence, the procedure for investigation must comply
with the procedural requirements of the law! This aspect is where
the Police interrogation video falls short of the legal standards
expected under law.
A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY
The procedural requirements in the administration of criminal
justice in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, is set forth under
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
The Act provides on Child offenders as follows:
Section 452. (1) Where a child is alleged to
have committed an offence, the provisions of the
Child Rights Act shall apply.
Now turning to the Child’s Rights Act 2003, the
Act provides under Section 204 that:
No child shall be subjected to the criminal justice process or
to criminal sanctions, but a child alleged to have
committed an act which would constitute a criminal offence if he
were an adult shall be subjected only to the child justice system
and processes set out in this Act.
Particularly Section 205 of the Child’s Rights
Act provides for the protection of the privacy of a
Child and states that:
(1) The right of the child to privacy specified in
section 8 of this Act shall be respected at all
stages of child justice administration in order to avoid harm being
caused to the child by undue publicity or by the process of
labeling. (2) Accordingly, no
information that may lead to the identification of a child offender
shall be published. (3) Records of a child
offender shall‐ (a) be kept strictly
confidential and closed to third parties;
(b) made accessible only to persons directly concerned
with the disposition of the case at hand or other duly authorised
persons; and (c) not be used in adult
proceedings subsequent cases involving the same child
offender.
Furthermore, the Act requires under its Section
207 provides for a specialisation within the Nigeria
Police Force for the investigation of offences committed by
Children. The Section states that:
(1) There shall be established, in the Nigeria Police Force, a
specialised unit of the Force, to be known as the Specialised
Children Police Unit (in this Act referred to as the “Unit”) which
shall consist of police officers who‐ (a)
frequently or exclusively deal with children; or
(b) are primarily engaged in the prevention of child
offences, (2) The Unit shall be charged with the following
functions, that is‐ (a) the prevention and
control of child offences; (b) the apprehension of child
offenders; (c) the investigation of child
offences; and (d) such other functions as
may be referred to the Unit by this Act or by regulations made
under this Act or by any other enactment. (3) Members
of the Unit shall be continually trained and instructed specially
for the functions conferred on the Unit under subsection (2) of
this section.
A LIMITED RECOURSE AGAINST THE
PARENTS
Finally, from the facts of the case as we know them, and with
the protection afforded to the child under law, one would wonder
the recourse that the Supermarket may have, considering that the
offender in question is incapable of paying the financial cost of
her actions. On this point is is necessary to note that the Child’s
Rights Acts gives a Judge the power to, upon conviction of the
child, impose fine or damages against the parents of a Child
offender. Particularly Section 223 provides
several methods of dealing with Child offenders including:
- dismissing the charge;
- placing the child under care order, guidance order and
supervision order, including‐
- discharging the child offender and placing him under the
supervision of a supervision officer; or - committing the child offender by means of a corrective order to
the care of a guardian and supervision of a relative or any other
fit person; or - sending the child offender by means of a corrective order to an
approved accommodation or approved institution; or
- ordering the child offender to participate in group
counseling and similar activities; - or ordering the parent or guardian
of the child offender to (i) pay a fine,
damages, compensation or costs; or (ii)
give security of his good behaviour; or
(iii) enter into a recognisance to take proper care of
him and exercise proper control over him;
IN CONCLUSION
It is necessary to note always that the offences by Children and
the treatment of Child offenders are matters which are of legal
concern and cannot be treated as a matter by the way. It is for the
protection of the Child’s rights that these provisions have been
enacted and it is necessary for law enforcement officers to be
trained on the need to comply with these laws rather than breach
them.