Share!
TREASON: Analyzing the Case of the Arrested 67 Minors
By Kabir Abdulsalam,
The recent video of 67 minors, some as young as 14, being paraded in court on charges of treason is deeply troubling. These teenagers, who joined August protests during the EndBadGovernance movement, appeared dehumanized and malnourished in the courtroom.
The Nigerian Police Force arraigned the teenagers for allegedly raising the Russian flag and calling for a military takeover in parts of Northern Nigeria.
Treason is one of the gravest charges a government can bring against its citizens, let alone its youth. In Nigeria, treason includes acts like attempting to overthrow the government or harming the sovereign and their family. It is a crime under Section 96 of the Penal Code and is punishable under Section 97.
Traditionally, treason involves actions that threaten a nation’s security, such as conspiring with foreign enemies or planning to overthrow the government. In this case, however, the defendants are children accused of joining protests, and engaging in military plots or espionage.
For many Nigerians, this isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a profound question about the kind of society we’re building for the next generation. Are we protecting young people’s rights, or are we stifling them in ways that could leave lifelong scars?
Both local and international laws entitle minors to specific protections ensuring just and humane treatment. Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and has its own Child Rights Act of 2003, which should safeguard these minors’ identities and ensure fair treatment in the legal process.
Yet, many of these young defendants have been publicly identified in court and their images widely circulated on social media, violating these protections. The Child Rights Act, which contains 278 sections, covers topics like access to health services, prohibition of child marriage, and state responsibility for protecting children’s rights.
The decision to charge these minors has sparked intense criticism from civil rights groups, legal experts, and ordinary citizens alike. Prominent voices in the legal community question whether charging minors with treason is proportional or an abuse of power.
Critics argue that this case reflects a broader trend of Nigerian authorities using excessive legal force against protesters, especially the youth. Many believe such charges are intended to intimidate future protesters.
It’s not only the legal charges that are troubling; the way law enforcement handles suspects—often parading them before cameras has turned these trials into media spectacles. In some cases, suspects’ names and faces appear in the news before they’ve even met with a lawyer. This premature exposure can be devastating, especially for young people whose lives are just beginning.
This exposure violates a core principle of Nigeria’s justice system: that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, in the court of public opinion, these minors are often cast as guilty merely for being on camera. This practice undermines their right to a fair trial and subjects them to public scrutiny and potential lifelong stigma. For a teenager, being publicly branded as a “traitor” can have lasting negative effects on mental health and future opportunities.
Canadian parenting expert Alyson Schafer has described such public humiliation as a “shame game,” explaining that it’s not an effective way to discipline children and can harm a child’s self-esteem.
While law enforcement must act responsibly, the media also has a duty to report sensitively on ongoing cases. Nigerian media law mandates that criminal case coverage should avoid assuming guilt or influencing public opinion before a verdict is reached. However, in high-profile cases like these, media outlets often display suspects’ images and personal details, disregarding the principles of fairness and privacy. Law enforcement agencies have also widely practiced this.
While reporting on cases involving minors, the media should balance the public’s right to know with the suspect’s right to privacy. This means protecting minors’ identities by withholding identifiable details, like their names, addresses, or photos, and using pseudonyms or blurred images instead. Online media platforms have often fallen short of this responsibility.
The handling of these cases highlights the need for reforms in our judicial and media practices. Nigeria’s judicial system should develop protocols that prioritize the privacy and rights of minors accused of crimes, especially in politically charged cases.
Similarly, our security agencies should focus on building strong cases based on thorough investigations rather than rushing to court to show “results.” Agencies like the FBI in the United States rarely lose cases because they ensure investigations are comprehensive before filing charges. A shift toward diligent, quiet investigation instead of sensational arrests would strengthen Nigeria’s justice system.
Rather than merely blaming the federal government, Northern leaders must also work to guide children off the streets. Too many young lives are left vulnerable to exploitation and violence. Families play a vital role in guiding and supporting their children, ensuring they grow up in safe, nurturing environments where they can reach their full potential.
The charges against these young Nigerians should be a wake-up call. It’s not only the minors on trial but our society’s treatment of its young and vulnerable members. Charging minors with treason and exposing them in the media, we risk undermining the democratic freedoms these protests seek to defend. Justice should balance protecting society and respecting individual rights, especially for young citizens.
Kabir writes from Abuja, can be reached via kbabdulsalam03@gmail.com
