The news and social media in the past few days have been turned asunder by the mass annoyance against the police prosecution of multitudes of children accused of treason as a result of vandalism that characterized the last protests tagged by the organisers as end-bad-governance protests. The response of the populace, laced with acerbity and acrimony, was enough to bring down the walls of Jericho and if not for the resisting thick skin of the government, it would have collapsed.
Lots of activists and definitely those who participated in or joined in organizing the protests in August succeeded in waking up mass annoyance against the government more so when one of the children was reported to have collapsed in the court room. The unpleasant sight of the children, displayed in slender frames of adolescence without clothing on, was sufficient to arouse repulsion in many people.
The fact that they had been in detention for months was not helpful as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) requires any person suspected of having committed an offence to be brought to court within twenty-four hours and be prosecuted within a reasonable time, barring court ordered extension of the period, or cases of terrorism.
It is easy to argue that the first-time arraignment of the children last week was in excess of the 24-hour prescription of the Constitution and definitely, the trial-within-a-reasonable-time rule has been violated by inordinate period of detention. The charge brought against them being treason was another cause for anger from those who felt that the government has not done enough to warrant anybody being arrested and prosecuted for any offence in the context arising from the protests.
In addition is the erroneous impression of many people that children ought not to be arrested or detained no matter the situation and neither should they be charged with treason considering the ages of the children.
While it is important to correct the erroneous impression spread by many probably out of ignorance or mischief that children are not supposed to be arrested for any offence, it is good to understand that the law of the land is made to apply to all without any form of discrimination save as prescribed within the law regulating any particular issue which discrimination must not offend the Constitution.
Regulating the affairs of children, principally, in Nigeria, is the Child Rights Act, 2003 which has provided comprehensively for this section of human community and has created a lot of offences that children may be prosecuted for. Whereas by section 221 of the Child Rights Act, no child shall be (a) imprisoned; or (b) subjected to corporal punishment; or (c) subjected to the death penalty or have the death penalty recorded against him, it is also the law by Section 222 of the same Act that “Notwithstanding anything in this Act to the contrary, where a child is found to have attempted to commit treason, murder, robbery or manslaughter, or wounded another person with intent to do grievous harm, the Court may order the child to be detained, for such period as may be specified in the order.”
The implication of the above is that a child may be charged with and prosecuted for treason, murder, robbery or manslaughter. No child, for being a child, enjoys immunity from being prosecuted for treason as was being argued in the media in the recent matter of the children detainees in Nigeria. A fundamental area where the police got it wrong is the fact of long detention without charge and the fact of arraigning them in a wrong court.
By Sections 149 and 177 of the Act, the Court with jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to children is the Family Court. This jurisdiction is jealously guarded and made exclusive by Section 162 of the Act.
This court has unlimited jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to children whether civil or criminal. It is a special court with professionalization and training necessary to handle such matters by its personnel as prescribed by Section 154 of the Act. The implication is that the Federal High Court where the children were charged has no jurisdiction to handle the matter and in the absence of jurisdiction, all that might have been done would be a nullity. The children charged with treason and other offences were exposed to public view with their identities recklessly revealed.
It is the law, by Section 157(1) of the Act, that no person shall publish the name, address, school, photograph, or anything likely to lead to the identification of a child whose matter is before the Court, except in so far as is required by the provisions of the Act. Failure to abide by this provision attracts N50,000 fine or imprisonment for a term of five years or both. It is expected that the above position of the law ought to be known to the prosecutors and they ought not to have run afoul of the law by charging the children suspects in the Federal High Court which has limited jurisdiction as prescribed in Section 151 of the Constitution and such other Act of the National Assembly.
Whereas parents and guardians of a child offender is supposed to be on attendance at the hearing of the matter in court, it is doubtful if any of the child suspects had his parents in court. In addition to the above was the fact that the offences were committed in a number of States in the northern parts of the country, arraigning them in Abuja might be said to be extra-territorial and hence in excess of the jurisdiction of the court. In any case, since the issue at hand is even outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the idea of filing in the Federal High Court is wrong. While the police might have approached a wrong court, it is expected that the Judge before whom the arraignment was sought to be done ought to know better.
His Lordship should know the extent of his jurisdiction just like a strong man must know the limit of his strength and a wise man must know the limit of his wisdom. Inability to resist temptation to prosecute or adjudicate is the bane of many officials of government whether in the judiciary or in the law enforcement agencies.
The Court ought to have deployed Section 22 of the Federal High Court Act to transfer the case to the appropriate court which is the Family Court. Assuming, without conceding that the Court of His Lordship is the Family Court arm of the Federal High Court, (if the law permits the Federal High Court to have such an arm) that might be pardonable and probably to that extent, neither the police nor His Lordship could be said to have erred.
However, there is nothing suggesting that there is a Family Court arm in the Federal High Court or that the law permits the establishment of such an arm of the Federal High Court more so that the relevant provisions of the Constitution do not pretend to vest such jurisdiction in the Federal High Court. The Child Rights Act, which vests jurisdiction, in this regard, has expressly mentioned the Court with jurisdiction to be the Family Court and by virtue of Section 152 of the Act, the Family Court at the High Court level is supposed to be domiciled in the High Court of the State and of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Check this story for Part (2)
IGP Egbetokun and the leadership acumenn (2)