Police Interrogation Of The Nine-Year-Old Suspected Arsonist: A Violation Of The Rights Of A Child

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:

1. dismissing the charge;
2. 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

1. ordering the child offender to  participate in group counseling and similar activities; 
2. 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.