Discordant tunes over Lagos Assembly controversial Anti-Cultism Bill

The Anti-cultism Bill, which has reached second reading at the Lagos State House of Assembly, has raised some fundamental constitutional issues which are yet to be resolved, KEHINDE OSASONA writes.

The Unlawful Societies and Cultism (Prohibition) Bill, 2020 also known as Anti-Cultism Bill has been tagged ‘the controversial Bill’ in some quarters.

The which was sponsored by the executive arm of the Lagos state government to curtail the menace of cultism, which is ravaging the state, has generated heated arguments and endless discourse with stakeholders taking positions for and against the Bill, even as chances of scaling through the remaining legislative processes appears slim.

What brought about the recent curiosity in respect of the issue was the fact that in the report, it was indicated that the bill seeks to punish parents for the offence of cultism committed by their children.

Speaking on one of the controversial sections of the Bill Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, stated: “Such punishment was to further prohibit unlawful societies and cultism in the state and for other connected purposes. Parents of cultists found guilty in the state might be liable for punishment, if the Bill finally becomes law.”

Although the Bill has scaled the second reading via voice vote at the Assembly, it appears that it is not yet uhuru as the controversies trailing it are yet to abate even as human rights groups and other stakeholder have continued to react over the controversial Bill.

Crime is personal PRAWA insists

For Prisoners Rehabilitation And Welfare Action (PRAWA), arresting persons in lieu of a person suspected to have committed the offence is a violation of Section 7 of the ACJA 2015.

PRAWA Deputy Director, Ogechi Ogu, quoting Section 2 of the Criminal Code which defines an offence as “An act or omission, which renders the person doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment under the Code or under any Act or law,” said, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act describes principal offenders as: “When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it.”

According to her, “Every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence; every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; every person who aids another person in committing the offence; any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.”

Ogu argued further that when the definitions above are combined with the element of proving an offence, which is intention to commit the offence, it becomes very clear that criminal responsibility is completely personal and it is clearly out of place to punish a parent because his/her child is a cultist.

“This is completely against our laws. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of States in the country clearly state that a person cannot be arrested in lieu of a person suspected to have committed the offence. See for example Section 7 of the ACJA2015.

“The Nigerian constitution also considers null and void, any law that is contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience.

“Parents of cultists are also likely to be victims of their activities and mostly may not know the activities of these persons. It is against the law of natural justice to make them serve punishment for the actions of these children,” she stated.

Bill inconsistent with the constitution

Similarly, a human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, criticized punishment for parents of suspects found guilty of cultism, describing such move as unconstitutional.

According to Effiong, if the proposed law purports to impose punishment on parents of cultists, it would be declared unconstitutional and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the constitution, because there is no vicarious liability in our criminal jurisprudence.

He stressed that there was no basis for such legislative proposal and such law is preposterous and offensive to justice.

“Most of these cultists in Lagos work for the politicians; they are recruited as political thugs and mercenaries during elections. Should members of the Assembly and other politicians who patronise them during elections be punished too,” he queried.

The Child Rights Law of Lagos state, he noted, has imposed obligations on the state government for the benefit of children, including provision of education and others, adding: “But the state government has failed to enforce the said law, thereby making young people vulnerable to cultism and other vices.”

… It’s harsh, illegal, arbitrary

In the same vein, another legal practitioner, Emmanuel Ekwe, noted that the provision of the Bill stipulating the arrest and prosecution of parents for the offence committed by their wards is harsh, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

He further described it as being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.

“It is shameful that lawmakers in Lagos State could contemplate that kind of law. The positions of our extant laws are clear on the fact that arrest in lieu is unlawful.

“You cannot go ahead to arrest an entirely different person for the offence committed by another, for any reason whatsoever.

“Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act made a clear provision in this respect. In fact, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, by virtue of Section 4, made it absolutely unlawful and improper to arrest an innocent person in substitution for a suspect.

“The right to personal liberty of the people is at risk if this kind of law is allowed to scale through and it would invariably violate Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Passing a law with a provision that is inconsistent with the constitution amounts to a nullity.

“Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that any other law that is inconsistent with the provision of the constitution shall, to its extent of the inconsistency, be void. The law will not stand the test of legal and constitutional validity,” Ekwe stated.

He further argued that, “This is the kind of law you get when you elect people into the legislative arm of government sentimentally. I think this is the time to organize a crash course for these lawmakers on the art of law making so that we do not get this kind of embarrassment in future.”

Bill offensive to natural justice

Toeing the same line, a university don and lawyer, Dr. Fassy Yusuf, also described the Bill with such provision as unconstitutional, null, void and repugnant to natural justice.

He said, “The Lagos State House of Assembly should repeal that Bill and come out with something that would be acceptable to all.

“Something must be wrong with our lawmakers to think that the parents of suspected cultists should be held accountable, unless the parents are accessory before or after the fact or accomplice of the offence. Otherwise, it is offensive to natural justice.”

Cultists should be accountable for their actions

For the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, said if and when proper investigations are made and it is proven that the parents of cult members support their children, they should be held liable.

“On the other hand, I do not think it would be right to hold parents liable strictly when their children join cults, because most of these students join the cult groups as adults and they are no longer minors. Thus, they should be accountable for their actions and decisions.

“Section 40 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution provides that ‘Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular, may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests,” he said.

According to Rafsanjani, the law frowns at unlawful assembly, association or society as provided in Section 62 of the Criminal Code Act which defines society and unlawful society, while Section 64 of the Criminal Code Act provides that any person who is a member of an unlawful society or knowingly allows a meeting of an unlawful society to be held in any house, building or place belonging to or occupied by him or over which he has control is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

“Penal Code Act, which covers the entire Northern Nigeria, also defines unlawful society in Section 97A, which provides that whoever manages or is a member of an unlawful society shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with a fine or both.

“As a Nigerian citizen captured under Sections 25, 26 or 27 of the 1999 Constitution, the fundamental rights of such a citizen are guaranteed under Sections 33 to 46 of the same constitution.”

Arguing further, he said that a Nigerian citizen under the provision of these laws should not be punished for the crime of cultism/unlawful society where he or she has not been found guilty of such by a competent court.

He advocated that the Bill should specify conditions under which a parent can be held liable as well as specify the kind of punishment such parents/guardians should receive.

“Parents of adults above the age of 18 should, however, be punished only if the child in question lives under their roof or they have been found guilty of having knowledge or supporting the cultist activities of the child.”

Leave a Reply