AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF NON-CONFORMITY WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN CRIMINAL TRIAL OF CHILDREN IN NIGERIA

Abstract

Children are a special genre of human beings and as such the international community recognises the need to treat matters concerning them with special attention.1 Like all human beings, children may commit crime. When they do, should they be tried in courts? If they are to be tried in courts, should the procedure of the trial be conducted in the same manner like that of any other adult human being? Extant laws in Nigeria have answered these questions through their provisions. For instance, extant laws show clearly that children can be tried for crimes committed in courts but these courts are to special types of courts dedicated to children alone.2 Moreover, special procedure, different from trial of adults, are clearly spelt out in the provisions of extant laws to be employed in the trial of children. Some states in Nigeria, contrary to extant statutory provisions, are yet to establish specialized courts required for trial of child offenders.3 The result is that, in these states, criminal trial of children are held in regular courts contrary to the provisions of extant laws. And in some other cases, procedures adopted for criminal trial of adults are also employed in trial of children contrary to extant laws. The pertinent question therefore is, does non-conformity to procedures spelt out in statutory provision really matter in the criminal trial of children in Nigeria provided there is substantial conformity to extant laws? It is crucial to point out here that the procedures being referred to in this context crucially span issues such as designations of the court of trial, the composition of such court and regulation of attendance of the proceeding when a child offender is on trial. These provisions, though statutory, are sometimes not observed in the criminal trial of children though there might be substantial compliance. Substantial compliance in the sense that, for instance, although a court might not bear the nomenclature assigned to it by a statute but it still meets the requirement of the statute in terms of composition of the court. In such an instance, can we say that the requirement of the statute has been met? This issue is important to us in determining whether such non-conformity does have the effect of nullifying the proceedings and forming a ground for challenging the decision of a court in a higher court?