By Onikepo Braithwaite
Shocking Treatment of Alleged Minors by Law Enforcement and the Nigerian State
What exactly is going on in this country? Politicians like former Kogi Governor, Yahaya Bello, Senators Orji Kalu & Elisha Abbo etc, are allowed to get away or seem to be getting away with committing serious economic and other criminal offences, while alleged underaged, poor children are detained, illegally detained in adult facilities like the Intelligence Response Team, Abuja (IRT), nicknamed “Abattoir” which is a place where animals are slaughtered (obviously IRT isn’t known for its humane treatment of suspects), instead of a Borstal which is a Youth Detention Centre, possibly starved in detention, and charged to the Federal High Court as adults for terrorism and trying to overthrow the Government! This is so shameful! Many of us watched the shocking video clip, of their appearance in court on Friday. Sections 151 & 204 of the Child’s Rights Act 2003 (CRA) stipulates a child must be charged to a Family Court and be subjected to the child justice system.
Though one of the Prosecutors claimed in a press briefing after their court appearance, that none of the children were underage, you could see that several of the detainees were Minors, including the one who collapsed in court, maybe early teens at best! One of the NGO Lawyers, in a Channels TV Politics Today interview on Friday evening, claimed that out of 75 suspects, at least 38 are Minors, possibly between the ages of 12 & 15, which for purposes of the CRA means someone below the age of 18 (see Sections 21 of the CRA, 494 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, 12(1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022, 7 of the Sexual Offences Act & 23(5) of Cybercrimes Act 2015). Also see Section 29(4)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended in 2023)(the Constitution), which defines “full age” as 18 years and above. Part II of the CRA confers the same fundamental rights in the Constitution, on children.
These children were arrested following the #EndBadGovernance Protest in August, and allegedly detained by virtue of a 60 day ex-parte court order. No charge was brought after the 60 days (they were brought to court after about 80/90 days or so). Their fundamental rights, appear to have been breached by the authorities. See Sections 34(1)(a), 35 & 36 of the Constitution & Sections 6, 9, 10 of the CRA. Also see the case of Ransome-Kuti & Ors v AGF & Ors (1985) LPELR- 2940(SC) per Kayode Eso, JSC on fundamental rights being rights that stand above the ordinary laws of the land, and are a guarantee against inhuman treatment.
Should the trial Judge not have ascertained if the court had jurisdiction to try all the suspects, based on the fact that some of them may have been Minors, and hence, taken to Family Court? Instead, the court granted these poor children bail, on conditions that they can never meet, while the matter was adjourned till January, 2025! Children who were said to have been on the street protesting against hunger (see Sections 40 & 41(2) of the Constitution & Sections 6 & 9 of the CRA on freedom of association, peaceful assembly and movement), were given bail conditions of N10 million, 2 sureties in the like sum who are Level 15 Civil Servants and family members! If they had such family members, and those who have access to such funds, it is doubtful that they would be on the streets protesting about hunger! It means that the court doesn’t want them released! Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) provides that bail conditions must not be excessive. See Ransome-Kuti & Ors v AGF & Ors (Supra), on excessive bail not being required. The issue of jurisdiction aside, I submit that the bail conditions given to these children were harsh and excessive. The charges filed against these Minors, is a story for another day.
In allegedly bringing underaged children to an adult court, several provisions of the CRA were violated. By virtue of Sections 149, 151(b), 152(4)(a), (b) & 204 of the CRA, the Family Court at the Magistrate or High Court level, is the proper venue for matters concerning criminal proceedings against children, depending on the weight of the charges, not the Federal High Court.
How can Nigeria honestly be looking for FDI from countries that uphold the rule of law, if no one, not even children, but guilty politicians, are spared from the wrath of the authorities? They will be scared to invest in Nigeria, in case they become victims in the event of a dispute.
While this gross abuse of the rights of less privileged children is going on, people like (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh are given preferential treatment to escape justice.
Déjà Vu! (Dis)honourable Mascot Ikwechegh vs ‘Senathug’ Elisha Abbo & Danladi Umar
I wonder if any of you my readers recalls my 2019 piece “The Trials of Senathug Abbo”, at the time when the Undistinguished Senator Abbo then representing Adamawa North Senatorial District, assaulted two ladies, Biba and Kemi, at a sex shop, Pleasure Chest Store, located at Banex Plaza, Abuja. (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh’s assault of Bolt Driver, Stephen Abuwatseya, seems like déjà vu.
Abbo and Ikwechegh both have certain characteristics in common – starting with them being bombastic elements, with their inflated opinions of themselves and feelings of self-importance (the “Do you know who I am?” Syndrome); they are violent and have anger issues; they lack respect for their fellow human beings; even though they are/were purported lawmakers, they have absolutely no regard for the rule of law; they bully those who they perceive to be weaker or less privileged; and they are also loud mouth braggarts. I don’t know who is worse – Abbo, who assaulted women, or Ikwechegh, who threatened to make Mr Abuwatseya disappear; we don’t know whether the disappearance would have been through magical means à la Professor Peller, the famous Nigerian Magician, or it was a threat to kill the driver! A threat to kill is a felony offence in Nigeria, attracting up to seven year’s imprisonment upon conviction (see Section 327 of the Criminal Code Act 2004 (CCA)).
At the time, I had stated that if Abbo was allowed to get away with his crimes “it would not only send the worst message to the world about our law enforcement agencies, but also about Nigeria’s stand on the equality of all in the eyes of the law, protection of fundamental human rights, gender-based violence and the rule of law”. See the Preamble, Chapter IV particularly Section 42 & Section 1 of the Constitution. Abbo was arrested, granted bail, and that was the last we heard of the matter! Nothing came out of it, beyond the media hype.
Barely two years later, the former Chairman of the Conduct Tribunal, Mr Danladi Umar, kicked and slapped a security guard, Mr Clement Sargwak at the same Banex Plaza, over a misunderstanding about parking spots. He also got off scot free, after breaching Mr Sargwak’s right to dignity and enobling treatment – see Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution, and assaulting him amongst other crimes, such as aiding and abetting the Police to intimidate Mr Sargwak (just as Senathug Abbo did) which attracts a punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment or a N200,000 fine or both upon conviction – Please, note, for those who are in the habit of using the Police and other law enforcement agencies unlawfully against others – see the case of Skye Bank Plc v Emerson Njoku & Ors (2016) LPELR-40447(CA) per Ita George Mbaba, JCA, where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that parties who wrongly use agencies such as the Police or any other law enforcement agency to violate the fundamental rights of citizens, should be ready to face the consequences, either alone or with the misguided Agency.
Options
1) Recall & Suspension
And, just like Senathug Abbo who rendered a lack lustre apology, (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh rendered his own AI generated apology! But, the matter goes beyond rendering insincere public apologies, as crimes appear to have been committed. Like Abbo, Ikwechegh was elected to his position; by virtue of Section 69 of the Constitution he can be recalled by his constituents (which will probably not happen).
The issue of suspension from the House of Representatives (which (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh deserves), even though the Standing Orders of the House Ninth Edition (SOH) allows 14 days suspension (see Order 10(4) & (6)(d) of the SOH & Sections 21, 22 & 24(1)(a) of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2018)(LHPPA) appears to be unconstitutional, as it would deny Ikwechegh’s constituency representation in the House during the period of his suspension, contrary to Sections 42(1)(a) & 49 of the Constitution. Also see the case of Dino Melaye & 4 Ors v The Speaker of the House of Representatives & Ors FHC/ABJ/CS/460/2010, where the Court held the suspension of the Plaintiffs for a legislative session of one year was illegal and unconstitutional, on the ground that a Legislator cannot be suspended for more than 14 days according to the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, which is still 14 days too long, since Section 14(2)(a) & (c) of the Constitution also provides that sovereignty belongs to the people, and they have a right to participate in their government. This is done through elected representatives.
However, as far as suspension is concerned, (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh’s salary, allowances and perquisites can be suspended (see Section 21(3) of the LHPPA); this will affect him personally.
2) Code of Conduct for Public Officers
(Dis)honourable Ikwechegh is a Public Officer (see Paragraph 3 Fifth Schedule to the Constitution Part II Public Officers for the Purposes of the Code of Conduct). By virtue of Paragraph 9 Fifth Schedule to the Constitution Part I Code of Conduct for Public Officers, Ikwechegh abused his office, and he can be reported to the Code of Conduct Bureau (see Paragraph 12). If he’s taken before the Conduct Tribunal (CCT) and found guilty of abuse of power, the CCT can impose punishment on him, including ordering the vacation of his seat or disqualification from membership of the House of Representatives, and from holding any public office for a period not exceeding 10 years, without prejudice to him being prosecuted in a court of law, if he has committed a criminal offence (see Paragraph 18(2)(a), (b) & (3) of Code of Conduct for Public Officers).
It is unlikely that the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) can offer Ikwechegh any protection either. In Aroyame v Governor of Edo State & Anor (2022) LPELR-57819(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN), the Supreme Court held that “Abuse of office is use of power to achieve ends other than those for which power was granted, for example, for personal gain, to show undue favour to another or to wreak vengeance on an opponent, to mention but a few”. Ikwechegh’s actions point to being borne out of malice and possibly vengeance, for Mr Abuwatseya not paying homage to him, as opposed to being for any gain.
3) Criminal Prosecution
Criminal prosecution is also another line of action that can be taken in the Ikwechegh situation; he should face criminal prosecution, not just because that is the procedure which follows such actions in civilised countries, but also because his punishment should serve as a deterrent to other violent politician bullies like him. Section 66(1)(c) of the Constitution can then be invoked against Ikwechegh, so that in the event that he is convicted, he will be disqualified from seeking elective office for a period of 10 years.
The negative trend of surreptitiously trying to confer immunity from suit and legal process on Legislators while in office, that the Constitution doesn’t confer on them, must stop. See Section 308 of the Constitution.
Offences that Appear to have been Committed by Ikwechegh
From the video of the Ikwechegh incident, which was available on social media, several offences appear to have been committed against Mr Abuwatseya – voluntarily causing hurt; use of criminal force against another; threat of assault; assault; contrary to the Sections 240, 242, 262, 263, 264, 265 of the Penal Code Act 1960 (PCA), punishable with imprisonment of one year with an option of fine or both (see Sections 246, 265(a), of the PCA); also threat to life.
Additionally, Sections 4(1), 14(1), 18(1) of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (VAPP) appear to have been breached, as (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh also seemed to place Mr Abuwatseya in fear of physical injury and his life; emotionally, verbally and psychologically abused him, and also intimidated him. Section 104 of the CCA also provides for the offence of abuse of office, and prescribes a punishment of two years imprisonment if the act is prejudicial to the rights of another, but not for purposes of gain.
Conclusion
A community reading of the Constitution, the Fifth Schedule thereto (Code of Conduct) and the PCA, show that (Dis)honourable Ikwechegh’s actions could land him in jail for up to seven years, and keep him from public office for up to 10 years, if he is found guilty by the CCT or a court of law. The CCT option is also good, in that, if convicted by the CCT, Ikwechegh will have to serve his full sentence by virtue of Paragraph 18 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and cannot enjoy any prerogative of mercy provided in the Constitution. But, in reality, I’m not sure that anyone expects that anything will come out of Ikwechegh’s criminal behaviour. If it does, it will certainly be a surprise!
Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com