It is not news anymore that Abdullahi Maruff Adisa, popularly known as Trinity Guy, sexually abused and exploited a child in the Kuola area of Ibadan, Oyo State. Abdullahi asked the victim the colour of his penis, recording the scene and posting it on social media. However, information has it that Abdullahi paid the child, and the parents knew that it was a prank. In this piece, our analyst examines the legal implications of the skit maker’s action from national and state legal perspectives.
Firstly, Chapter IV (Section 33–46) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) provides for the fundamental rights of every person, including children. This right must not be denied by anyone in any part of Nigeria. As the state prosecutor hinted during the first court proceeding on Monday, June 26, 2023, the offences are contrary to Section 35 (1) and punishable under Section 35 (2) of the Oyo State Child Rights Law, 2006.
The offences also contravened Section 516 of the Criminal Code Laws of Oyo State, 2000, which states that “Any person who conspires with another to commit any felony, or to do any act in any part of the world which if done in Nigeria would be a felony, and which is an offence under the laws in force in the place where it is proposed to be done, is guilty of a felony and is liable, if no other punishment is provided, to imprisonment for seven years, or, if the greatest punishment to which a person convicted of the felony in question is liable is less than imprisonment for seven years, then to such lesser punishment.”
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
According to Nigeria’s Child Rights Act 2003, as domesticated by the Oyo State Child Rights Law 2006, “Every child must be protected against all forms of exploitation, indecent, or degrading treatment, including child labour, abuse and torture, sexual exploitation, sale, abduction, and drug abuse.
“Every child should be protected from any act that interferes with his or her privacy, honour, and reputation in the homes, family, and school, provided that a parent or legal guardian shall have the right to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of their children.”
Looking at the gravity of the offences, it would be hard for the defendants, especially Abdullahi, to pray to the court that he is expressing his fundamental human rights and also exercising his rights to labour or work under the 1999 Constitution. This is hinged on the existing global three-part test tool for analysing cases like this. The tool states that interferences with freedom of expression are legitimate only if they (a) are prescribed by law; (b) pursue a legitimate aim; and (c) are “necessary in a democratic society.”
Purpose or Objective
From the 1999 Constitution to the sections of the Oyo State Child Rights Law, 2006, and Section 516 of the Criminal Code Laws of Oyo State, 2000 invoked by the state prosecutor in this case, it is a must to protect the rights and welfare of children in Oyo State. The law aims to safeguard children from various forms of abuse, including sexual abuse and exploitation. The objective is to provide a legal framework that ensures the well-being and protection of children in the state.
Rational Relationship
The next step is to assess whether there is a rational relationship between the actions of the skit maker and the objective of the law. In this case, Abdullahi, the skit maker, is accused of sexually abusing and exploiting a child by recording the incident and sharing it on social media. If proven true, these actions can be seen as violating the child’s rights and contravening the objective of the Child Rights Law, which seeks to prevent such abuses.
Proportionality
The third component involves examining the proportionality of the law’s impact on individual rights. The question here is whether the punishment prescribed by the Child Rights Law, which includes a potential sentence of 15 years imprisonment for the skit maker if found guilty, is proportional to the offense committed.
Overall, Abdullah cannot claim that he was pursuing legitimate means of livelihood at the detriment of a minor. The parents, who were also said to be aware, cannot claim ignorance by not knowing that their child should be protected from any form of exploitation. Therefore, prosecuting and sentencing the skit maker if found guilty is legitimate and “necessary in a democratic society.”