It is absolutely crazy that it took a little less than a year for the second issue of the Lexiclopedia to get published, but then those 11 months have not been anything other than “crazy”. From Nigerian legislative reforms (with emphasis on taxation) to the just concluded US elections, it has been a wild ride and we've all been there for it.
But even with such unpredictability in recent events, I believe that most Nigerians didn't expect to see the faces of 30 children, between the ages of 14 and 17 years, brought to a court for trial in 2024. You would've probably heard about this and according to the stories that made rounds, these children—along with at least 84 adults—were arrested for their alleged involvement in the #EndBadGovernance protests of August and arraigned on 1st November on 10 counts of felony including destruction of property, treason, mutiny, and public disturbance.
These kids need food, a home and education. Not prison.
How can this be right?
1,860
So, get this right, we are in a country where 30 scrawny hungry children got arrested by law enforcement and were arraigned before a certain Justice Obiora Egwatu on All Saints’ Day 😇, because they demanded for good governance and justice. And you'd think that the worst part is done, but no.
According to reports from news outlets, during the trial (from which they were EACH granted bail pending trial for ₦10 million with two sureties), 2 of these underaged defendants collapsed, due to malnutrition—while struggling to get into the dock. In other words, a Nigerian court tried MALNOURISHED children for protesting for better government policies that could help them get NOURISHED.
But of course, gracious President Bola Tinubu gave directives on Monday, demanding the immediate and “unconditional” release of all the arrested minors whilst asking the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction to tend to their needs and welfare, as well as ensure their safe reunion with their family. He also ordered an inquiry on the matter as well as an investigation on the law enforcement bodies involved—all of which are what I’d call ACTIONS THAT BORDER ON WORRY OVER BACKLASH.
Now, as you'd expect, this story garnered a lot of public attention and outcry—the tweet above being a testament to that—with members of the polity unable to comprehend how such a seemingly cruel development could take place. One of the burning questions that remained on the minds of everyone interested was,
“Is the prosecution of minors permitted in Nigeria?”
And to answer this, we must understand the stance of the law.
According to the Child’s Rights Act (CRA) of 2003, a child (minor) is anyone under the age of 18 years. But here's where it gets tricky - not every state or area of law in Nigeria follows this exact same age qualification. Some states might consider things like whether a person has reached puberty (especially in northern states using Islamic law), while others might look at different ages for different situations. For example, when it comes to working, the labor law says a child is someone under 15, but when dealing with criminal matters, the Children and Young Persons Act splits it up - calling people under 14 "children" and those between 14-17 "young persons."
It's like having different age limits for different activities - just like how you might be old enough to watch certain movies but not old enough to drive. And yes, it can get confusing because what identifies a person as a "child" might change depending on whether you're talking about marriage, work, voting (which is 18), or getting in trouble with the law. The most commonly used definition is anyone under 18, but you really need to know the specific situation and location in Nigeria you are in, to understand how the law will operate.
As the basis of the uproar that birthed this second issue of the newsletter, minors are morally, somewhat legally, and religiously exempt from criminal responsibility, the Criminal Code and Penal Code — in Sections 30 and 50(a) and (b) respectively — exempt only minors of 7 years and below while allowing the prosecution of children between the ages of 7 and 12.
A person under the age of seven years is not criminally responsible for any act or omission.
A person under the age of twelve years is not criminally responsible for an act or omission, unless it is proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission he had capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.
— SECTION 30, CRIMINAL CODE ACT
According to both laws, such prosecution will only be possible if the child is knowledgeable of the crime and its consequences.
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 had not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of such act.
— SECTION 50(a) AND (b), PENAL CODE ACT
Thus, it can be posited that while both laws alienate children of below 7 years from criminal responsibility because it is believed that they lack at least one of the critical elements required to commit a crime: actus reus (the physical act of the crime) and mens rea (the mental intent to commit the crime); they institute the application of the principle of doli incapax for the children that fall in the second class (ie, 7-12 years)—which means that children in this age group do not have the moral and intellectual capacity to understand the criminal nature of their acts unless proven otherwise; thus placing the burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate that the child knew that his/her actions were wrong.
As such, when a child of 6 or less years is brought before a court in Nigeria, the law basically says “This child can't be guilty because they're too young to understand what they did”. But if the child is between the ages of 7 and 12, the question becomes: “Does this child really understand enough to be held responsible for a crime?” At this point, it's not just about their age—it's about whether they can understand right from wrong. It's like checking if someone knows the rules before punishing them for breaking them.
On the basis of this, the court then has to think carefully about two things:
How well does this young person understand what they did?
What kinds of defenses can they use in court, considering their age?
In truth, on careful consideration, it can be understood that the Nigerian legal and judicial systems make provisions for the prosecution of children from the ages of 7 and above; although for those within the 7-12 year age group, the prosecution has to provide evidence that proves criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt before the court.
So while we have established that the court was following due process by trying “young persons”, what becomes the next bone of contention is the stance of the law on the right to peaceful protests in a country, such as this, whose government have not done enough to quell those protests.
Being as diverse and diseased with bad governance as we have been, it is proper to expect that we share the pain of those protesters, see the need for the protests, support their unconditional release, and now understand the stance of the law on their trial; but now, as a people, how can we make our intentions known to the government through protests without incurring some felony charges?