Detained Minors: Constitutional Rights, Accountability, and a Call for Compassionate Governance

Recently, Nigeria has witnessed a surprising case involving a group of young citizens taken to court for raising the flag of another nation and reportedly calling for a military intervention.

This act, deemed seditious by the authorities, led to their detention, sparking national debate over the appropriate response to youthful dissent and expressions of political dissatisfaction.

Under the Nigerian Constitution, acts that are seen as threats to national security or as seditious can be grounds for legal action. Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) allows restrictions on certain freedoms if it’s “reasonably justifiable” for public order or national security.

In this case, raising another country’s flag and calling for a military takeover may have appeared to authorities as an act that could incite public unrest or threaten national stability, potentially justifying their initial detention.

However, the duration and conditions of their detention—spending three months in prison—raise concerns about proportionality and the rights of the accused under the same Constitution.

Section 35 guarantees the right to personal liberty and requires that detainees be treated with dignity. Additionally, any detained person should be promptly charged or released.

In the case of these youths, many argue that keeping them incarcerated for such an extended period was neither just nor proportionate to their actions.

Rather than imprisoning these youths, the government had alternative, potentially more constructive options.

Educative programs or restorative justice approaches could have been implemented, where the youths would understand the implications of their actions and discuss their grievances within a civic framework.

This approach would have allowed the state to address any misunderstandings, promote national values, and foster a sense of patriotism without curtailing freedom of expression or intensifying feelings of resentment among young people.

In addition, using dialogue to address their actions would align with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Section 39 and 40 of the Constitution, even if the government had concerns about the specific nature of the protest. 

Engaging with young citizens, especially those with grievances, not only fosters peace but helps prevent the kind of disillusionment that can drive individuals toward actions perceived as rebellious or extreme.

In this situation, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s call for the release of these youths was a commendable act. His intervention, encouraging a more empathetic approach, signifies his administration’s acknowledgment of the need for reform in handling youth grievances.

This decision resonates with the spirit of justice as envisioned in the Nigerian Constitution, especially in a society where empathy and understanding are increasingly necessary for unity.

By calling for their release, President Tinubu has sent a message that the government is willing to listen, allowing room for compassion and justice to work hand-in-hand. His leadership in this case highlights the importance of protecting the future of Nigerian youth and fostering an environment where dialogue is preferred over punishment.

The case of these young Nigerians serves as a reminder of the complexities of governance and the importance of measured responses to dissent. While it is essential to maintain national security and order, it is equally crucial to respect the rights and dignity of every citizen.

Through a balanced approach rooted in the principles of the Nigerian Constitution, the government can demonstrate its commitment to both justice and compassion, setting a foundation for a society where every voice can be heard.