By Sonnie Ekwowusi

In assessing the humanitarian issues of our time, the pitiable situation of Nigerian children calls for serious concern. A world with endangered children is a perishing world. It is a great indictment of our age that the victims of man’s inhumanity to man are our own children—the most innocent among us. Children are our future. Unfortunately, however, children everywhere are victims of rape, torture, infanticide, forced labour, child soldiering, child prostitution, child pornography, unsafe teenage sex, modern slavery, child street hawking, and preventable childhood diseases.

Therefore, this year’s Children’s Day celebration offers us another opportunity to reflect on the plight of Nigerian children. Over the past year, we have watched with alarm the increasing hostilities against children and the destruction of countless young lives in Nigeria. Most tragically, over the years, we have witnessed the unnecessary spilling of the blood of innocent children.

For example, in the past ten years, Boko Haram terrorists and abductors in the North have repeatedly stormed schools and seminaries, freely murdering, maiming, raping, and abducting their victims. To date, the whereabouts of Leah Sharibu—a schoolgirl abducted in the North by Islamic terrorists for refusing to convert to Islam—remain unknown. Just a few days ago in Ibadan, a stray bullet killed a 15-year-old SS1 secondary school student, Kehinde Alade. The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) recently admitted that a “technical glitch” compromised some results of this year’s exam, after nearly 80% of the students recorded low grades. Frustrated by her poor score, Faith Opesusi Timileyin, 19, committed suicide.

Laws protecting children’s rights are not lacking in Nigeria. The Child Rights Act, 2003 (as amended) promotes the rights of children. Specifically, Section 30 of the Act prohibits child trafficking, child sex trafficking, and surrogacy. In addition, the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act (TIPPEA Act) condemns all forms of human trafficking. Section 82 of the Act defines trafficking in persons to include:

“… the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person or debt bondage for the purpose of placing or holding the person, whether or not in involuntary servitude (domestic, sexual or reproductive), in forced or bonded labour, or in slavery-like conditions, the removal of organs or generally for exploitative purposes.”

This definition clearly captures surrogacy, as well as all parties to surrogacy and agents/persons involved in the business of surrogacy—including doctors, lawyers, and others—where exploitation is involved.

By virtue of the combined effect of Sections 228, 229, 230, and 328 of the Criminal Code (and their equivalent provisions in the Penal Code), abortion is illegal in Nigeria. The United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that “mankind owes the child the best it has to give.” Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989, which Nigeria has signed and ratified, states that every child—before and after birth—has the right to life, basic education, and freedom of expression.

But despite the foregoing laws protecting the Nigerian child, children in Nigeria remain an endangered species. Unfortunately, only about 16 out of the 36 states of the federation have so far adopted the Child Rights Act. Despite the existing legal framework, infanticide and abortion are still routinely committed in many parts of the country. Disturbingly, many young Nigerian girls are renting their wombs for surrogacy for as little as ₦250,000. Similarly, others are selling their eggs for paltry sums. A few months ago, the University of Ibadan (UI) raised an alarm that many female students were selling their eggs—a dangerous practice that poses serious risks to their procreative health.

Equally disturbing is the sight of children aged between five and eighteen, without access to basic education, loitering the streets—abandoned by negligent parents. The few fortunate ones enrolled in public schools are exposed to various forms of danger. For over 12 years, school pupils and residents of several communities in local government areas of Oyo State have suffered from stray bullets fired from a shooting range inside a nearby army barracks. In other parts of the country, many schoolchildren are denied access to basic education due to unforeseen and avoidable circumstances.

As I stated earlier, this year’s Children’s Day Celebration affords us an opportunity to put in place the necessary mechanisms for the protection of our children. We must recognize that, like adults, children are entitled to the full enforcement of their rights. Therefore, states that object to the Child Rights Act on cultural and religious grounds are respectfully urged to adopt and implement the Act.

The Children and Young Persons (Street Trading) Law, which prohibits the employment of female children in street trading, should be enforced. Likewise, the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, the laws on abortion, and the Cinematography Law—which prohibit the dissemination of harmful publications and films to children—should also be enforced. The same applies to the Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Law (2002). Government agencies, voluntary organizations, and NGOs must create frameworks to promote existing child welfare services and trusts in the country.

A society that allows its children to be killed or dehumanized is heading for extinction. Public office holders and law enforcement agents must understand that children have rights that must be protected.

Our children should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy environment, and in conditions of freedom and dignity. That is the only way we can hope to nurture the future leaders of tomorrow. Our future is built on the triumph of youthful potential. Therefore, if that potential is destroyed, our future is inevitably destroyed as well.

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

Nigeria and other African countries appear to still labour under the yokes of subjugation and imperialism, this time indirectly through the laws that should free them. It is worse in the Francophone entities where the policy of assimilation was imposed to take over the people, their culture, their language and indeed their entire existence. There are still so many laws in our statute books which either have no relevance to the current state of development of Nigeria or are inconsistent with our status as a sovereign state. But many of these laws rule and tie us to the apron strings of colonialism, not of their own making though.

Until recently in 2011 when the Evidence Act was amended, it used to be one of the laws bequeathed by the British masters, similar in that order to the Railway Act, Electricity Act and such other legislations that muzzle the liberty and rights of the citizens under the doctrine of sovereignty of the Crown. One of these archaic laws came up for interpretation by the Supreme Court recently and it gladdens the heart that the Justices of the Court who sat on the case displayed commendable patriotism in identifying the need to put Nigeria above dead legislations.

The Criminal Procedure Code (and indeed the Criminal Procedure Act) contain provisions that denigrate our status as free-born citizens with such deriding epithets as ‘idle and disorderly persons’ or ‘wanderers’, all of which were deployed by the British government to frustrate the noble campaigns of nationalists and activists for independence. Even after independence, successive governments in Nigeria have found it convenient to retain these oppressive legislations to suppress legitimate protests against bad governance. If our lawmakers will not discharge their constitutional responsibilities to expunge these offensive legislations from our statute books, let the courts continue to strike them down one after the other until they are totally obliterated. Permit me to share with you the facts of the case of Abu v State (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt.1989) 299, decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on Friday, March 1, 2025.

The appellant, Danjuma Abu, alongside five others were arraigned at the High Court of Gombe State on three counts charge of criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to section 5(b) and punishable under section 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act; illegal possession of firearms punishable under section 3 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and belonging to a wandering gang of persons associated with the purpose of habitually committing armed robbery punishable under section 306 of the Penal Code Law. The appellant and others were alleged to have conspired to rob at Tudun Hatsi Market, Gombe whilst in possession of a pistol with 4 rounds of live ammunition without a licence.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge preferred against him. The respondent in proof of its case called six witnesses whilst the appellant testified in his defence as DW4. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted on two of the three counts. He was discharged and acquitted on the second count of illegal possession of firearms. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 2(3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and section 306 of the Penal Code amongst others.

Section 2 (3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act:

“Any person found in any public place in possession of any firearms whether real or imitation and in circumstances reasonably indicating that the possession of the firearm is with intent to immediate or eventual commission by that person or any other person of any offence under section 1 of this Act or under the foregoing provisions of this section shall upon conviction under this Act be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than fourteen years but not more than twenty years.”

Section 306 of the Penal Code:

“Whoever belongs to a wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery and not being a gang of brigands, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

On When a person shall be punished for belonging to a gang of persons associated for purpose of habitually committing theft –

By the provisions of section 306 of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria, whoever belongs to a wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery and not being a gang of brigands, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.:

“My Lords, this is a provision that has caused so many problems in its misuse by law enforcement agents. In the circumstances of this case, the facts do not support the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The appellant and his cohorts were in situ in an uncompleted building. They were not at the time of their arrest “wandering” by any definition of that word. “Wander” according to Dictionary.com is defined as “to ramble without a definite purpose or objective, roam, rove or stray” or “to go aimlessly, indirectly or casually; to meander”. The appellant and others were not found on the streets wandering about. They came from their different homes to gather in the uncompleted building. The evidence adduced in support of this count is insufficient to ground a conviction”.

On Meaning of “Wandering”

Wandering is defined as to ramble without a definite purpose or objective, roam, rove or stray or to go aimlessly, indirectly or casually to meander. (P.325, paas. D-E)

On Offence of Wandering

 Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at page 327, paras. A-D:

“At common law, the freedom to roam or “everyman’s” right is the general public’s right to access certain public or privately owned land, lakes and rivers for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the “right to roam. The offence of “wandering” is in common law the same as vagrancy. The vagrancy law in this jurisdiction and some jurisdictions was created to criminalize the act· of wandering from place to place with no evidence of employment or a way to· support oneself. Prostitution, professional gambling and disorderly conduct, loitering, public intoxication and public defecation or urination were regarded as acts of vagrancy. “Vagrancy” or “wandering” was originally a crime targeted at homelessness and unemployment that was, overreachingly and subjectively used to arrest those seen as political opponents or trouble makers. Most crimes which were covered by the law of vagrancy now have individual charges targeted at the specific offence’’.

On Right to Freedom of Movement and when Circumscribed –

 Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees right to freedom of movement and presupposes that every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom. This right to freedom of movement is circumscribed by section 41 (2) (a) of the Constitution which places a restriction on the right of movement of a person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence and the movement of the person must be restricted to ensure that the person does not escape the law. [Okafor v. Lagos State (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt.1556) 404 referred to.] (P. 326, paras. B-G)

On Meaning of Public Place –

A public place is a place that can be accessed and used by any member of the public as a member of the public as of right even if subject to certain restrictions. (P. 329, para. F)

On Need to Expunge Wandering as an Offence from Penal Code and Criminal Code –

Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.:

“By way of obiter, I think the law against wandering has lost its relevance and is against the spirit and letters of the 1999 CFRN (as altered). However, I will not go as far as to hold the law unconstitutional and to strike it down or expunge it from the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria or the Criminal Code of Southern Nigeria. Most states still have this law in their criminal law codes. This is principally because this court has not been asked to do so by the appellant’s counsel and the court will not gratuitously strike out a criminal legislation. Apart from that, the whole essence of society is to set limits to the rights of individuals if and when they infringe on the rights of the corporate unit.

Thus, Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution in setting out these fundamental rights makes them subordinate to the overall good of the society and accordingly enables laws that are necessary for democracy, security and the general wellbeing of the entire society. It appears that as William Pitt stated at that House of Commons speech in 1783: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.” The courts have the unique duty to deal with enforcement of human rights when infringed by the government or the executive or another private individual. It is the reconciliation of liberty with authority that is thus the bounden duty of the judges.”

Our statute books are filled with similar odious legislations that portray Nigeria as a country still under colonial rule. It is commendable that the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation has constituted a committee to review the laws of the Federation. This must be done holistically, working with the legislature. The various States should also examine their laws to rid them of all legislations that seem to subjugate the people. But while they are at it, let the courts continue to free Nigeria from all colonial legislations that provoke our collective sovereignty.

By Suyi Ayodele

At his coronation as the Deji of Akure, an old man, according to the legend, was asked to choose a regnal name.

Being a man who had advanced in age before he was named the Deji-designate, the would-be Oba chose the name, Òjìjígògún. That is a strange name.

The simple meaning of Òjìjígògún is I have ascended the throne with my shadow. The English Language equivalent of Òjìjí is shadow. Ògún or Ìmògún, in the royal dialects of Akure, Owo, and up to Benin, means throne.

The kingmakers present in Ìpèbí (seclusion) when the Deji picked the regnal name were shocked. Name is significant in Yoruba world outlook. Names carry meanings. So, they asked the new king to explain the meaning of the name he chose.

Picking his words, the Deji asked the kingmakers if any of them ever gave him the chance that he would one day be crowned the Deji, given his old age. They all answered him in the negative.

Then, the new Oba said, “Alright, I will explain the reason I choose to be called Òjìjígògún. Today, let it be known to all of you that it is not only me that has ascended the throne. My past, my present, and my future are here on the throne with me.” The new Deji stopped. Kings are known to speak in a few words; no room for verbosity with the royals!

The kingmakers and the Omo Owas (princes) present understood him. They knew that a man is made up of his past, his present, and his future. They equally knew that a man’s present is defined by his past (antecedents) and his future determined by a combination of his past and present. In totality, no man can run away from his òjìjí. Shadow reflects a man’s past, his present, and his future.

These three elements are significant in the Yoruba understanding of the concept of òjìjí, which is made up of a man’s Ara, the physical or material; that is, the body, represented by the shadow: Ọkàn (the mind) and Ẹmí (the spirit). Why then should a man be afraid of his òjìjí (shadow), his Ọkàn (mind-present), and his Ẹmí (spirit- future)?

Oba Òjìjígògún whose real name is Deji Aládégbùjì, the story says, was on the ancient throne of Akure for 30 years (1852-1882) as the 38th Deji and was one of the oldest monarchs of the kingdom. His reign, ~judged~ judging by his shadow (past), his present (while he was on the throne), and what he wanted the future to record for him, was one of the best Dejis of Akure.

He successfully resisted the incursion of Ibadan warriors to Akure Kingdom. Oba Òjìjígògún featured prominently in the 1877 Ekiti-Parapo War that ended all internecine wars in Yorubaland. He joined his forebears, leaving a lasting legacy for the Arakale Royal Family of Akure to cherish!

The Akure Kingdom prospered under his watch. Oba Òjìjígògún was never afraid of his shadow because he knew he had done well before coming to the throne. That was why he practically asked his people, represented by the kingmakers, to judge him by his deeds – past and present – and history has a positive portion for him!

Should a man be afraid of his òjìjí, the Yoruba word for shadow? The simple non-esoteric interpretation of òjìjí is a reflection. But it has a deeper spiritual connotation when we apply mysticism to the surface meaning of òjìjí.

One common feature of the phenomenon, òjìjí, is that it appears in the latter part of the day, or where there is a shade, a cloudy place or faded light. We see the shadow more in the evening times, and that underscores its spiritual dimension. We shall not be going into that today.

As children in the countryside, we played a lot with our shadow. One of the things we tried to do with our shadow then, especially when it appeared before us, was to step on it. But we could not achieve that as the shadow kept moving ahead of us, projecting far from the physical body.

At times, deep into the evening, the shadow appears behind us, trailing us. As children, too, we looked back, making attempts to get hold of it. It was also an exercise in futility.

At that stage, fear would set in. Shadow is phenomenal. It appears to follow us wherever we go. Yet, we cannot hold it physically. When it was getting late in the night and the shadow appeared, we used to take a dash into our homes, to the protection of our parents or any available adult. Shadow can be both pleasing and frightening!

Whenever that happened, and we got frightened, the exhortation we got from the elderly ones is that we should strive not to be afraid of our shadows. They would add that the only way to achieve that is to always strive to do that which is acceptable.

The elders then impressed on us that our shadows would be the witnesses against us on the day of judgement. Only a bad man, the elders further counselled, would be afraid of his shadow. How right were they?

We are no longer in the era of Deji Aládégbùjì Òjìjígògún. This is Nigeria of the Year of the Lord 2025. It is an era where those in authority are afraid of their past and present. We are in a season when leaders don’t want us to remember their shadows when determining their future. This is a strange time indeed!

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will be seeking a second term in 2027, God willing. No, that is not the correct way to put it. Tinubu will not be seeking a second term. He has already had the second term delivered on his laps! No thanks to his acolytes, who have told us that the President is the best thing to happen to humanity after the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

They have said nobody else can do the job except Tinubu. This is why, from Gbonyin in Ekiti State to Malali in Kaduna; from Ekwulobia in Anambra State to the Kukuruku Hills of Afemai, Edo State, President Tinubu is harvesting second-term endorsements the way a maize farmer harvests his cobs of maize.

Ironically, the man whom all his promoters said had done wonderfully well is angry that a few Nigerians are asking for his assessment based on his òjìjí – shadow. President Tinubu is afraid of a shadow cabinet or shadow government. He does not want anyone to use his shadows (deeds) in the last two years in office as President, to assess him. He wants to be President again. But he does not want anyone to beam the light on his outings so far.

It is no news that Tinubu would do anything to stop the idea of a shadow cabinet or shadow government, as suggested by Professor Pat Utomi. Our President hates the thought of alternative ideas to the shenanigans his government represents. He would not have any of that. And he would advance any argument from the grandiose to the japery to kick against that.

One of the giddy points Tinubu and his clique are raising against the idea of a shadow cabinet is that it is a practice alien to the presidential system of government, they claim we are running. Funny, very funny!

Tinubu and his hangers-on are saying that the concept of a shadow cabinet is an exclusive preserve of the parliamentary system of government. The presidential system, they argue, does not envisage that concept. Though in their usual ways, too, they failed to tell us if the presidential system is also synonymous with bad governance and rudderless leadership, the hallmarks of the present administration.

To stop the idea of what could give Nigerians alternatives to the killer economic policies of the present administration, the Directorate of State Security (DSS) approached the court to stop Utomi from forming anything near a shadow cabinet or shadow government. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025, the security agency asked the court to declare the planned shadow government an attack on the constitution.

The DSS argument is that “The defendant’s actions amount to an attempt to usurp or mimic executive authority, contrary to Sections 1(1), 1(2), and 14(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), which exclusively vests governance in institutions duly created under the constitution and through democratic elections.”

It therefore prayed the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction, restraining Utomi, “his agents and associates from further taking any steps towards the establishment or operation of a ‘shadow government,’ ‘shadow cabinet’ or any similar entity not recognized by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

What the heck (pardon my diction) is a shadow cabinet? Why can’t we have a shadow cabinet or government in a presidential system of government? If Shadow cabinet, by the definition of Tinubu orchestra is the exclusive preserve of the parliamentary system, can we ask where in any presidential system, all over the world, a president can sack a governor of a state and his deputy, dissolve the legislature and appoint a sole administrator the way Tinubu did in Rivers State? Why are the Emilokan apologists quick to refer us to the United States presidential system but will veil their eyes to see the letters, principles, and spirit of the system as being run in the US?

Ẹni tí kò sá bọtì, kii bẹrù òjò (he who does not spread millets outside, does not fear the rain), is a common saying among our elders. What is Tinubu afraid of? Why is he scared that a shadow cabinet that will give Nigerians alternative ideas to governance is being proposed? If he has done well, why is he afraid to compare notes? Is a shadow cabinet a threat to Tinubu’s presidency? I answer, NO! So, what is the issue?

Simple. President Tinubu is afraid of his own shadow. Because it is too dark and frightening! That itself is enough identikit to his performance as President. But for how long can the President run away from his òjìjí? I don’t want to sound impudent here. Otherwise, I would have asked President Tinubu to take a voyage back to his childhood when, like any other child of that time, he tried to play with his shadow or run away from it.

Our shadows follow us wherever we go. So it has been from the creation of the earth; and so shall it remain till the end of time. Whether he allows the shadow cabinet to be formed or not, Nigerians shall judge Tinubu in 2027 based on his shadow of today. He has two years ahead to make amends. He has 24 full months to lessen the burden. He has all the chances in the world now to change the negative narratives his government is to positive ones.

President Tinubu should stop chasing the shadow, thinking that Nigerians would be cajoled again. His libidinous manhood has raped us in a farm hut the first time because he called it a mansion. We shall not follow him on the same farm path leading to the hut he once projected to us as a mansion in his first violation of our womanhood. The shadow of his four years in office shall follow Tinubu to his bid for a second term. That will surely happen unless Nigeria is doomed!

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.