On July 11, 2023, a skit maker named Maruf Abdullahi, also known as Trinity Guy, was ordered by a family court in Iyaganku, Ibadan, Oyo state, to be held in the Agodi Correction Centre on allegations of sexual exploitation involving a ten-year-old girl.

Under the Children’s Rights Act of 2003, do Trinity Guy’s actions constitute sexual exploitation of a minor despite obtaining the consent of the minor’s parent?

Let’s review section 30(2)(a) of the Children’s Rights Act of 2003. 

According to the section, “a child shall not be used- (a) for the purpose of begging for alms, guiding beggars, prostitution, domestic or sexual labour or for any unlawful or immoral purpose.

This section criminalises the use of a child for sexual labour or any unlawful or immoral purpose. Although the law does not explicitly define what constitutes “immorality” in the context of a child, this could mean the use of a child for activities that deviate from the moral standard expected of a reasonable man.

In the video published by the Trinity Guy via his social media pages and YouTube, the skit-maker was seen threatening the minor with his slippers to describe the colour of his manhood, which the minor horrendously did.

The Trinity Guy had claimed in his defence against the charge that he had obtained the consent of the parent prior to shooting and publishing the video. 

Is parent-informed consent sufficient in this context, and at what point does parent-informed consent violate a child’s rights? 

For a parent’s informed consent to be valid in the context of a child, it must be made in the “best interest” of the child, although there is no standard definition of “best interests of the child.” 

Typically, when making determinations about the “best interests” of a child, various factors pertaining to the child’s situation and the parent or caregiver’s situation are taken into account. The primary focus is always on ensuring the child’s safety and overall welfare.

The power dynamic between a parent and their minor child is characterised by an inherent imbalance. 

Essentially, minors lack the ability to make certain decisions, and therefore, their parents or guardians assume responsibility for making such decisions on their behalf. 

In the event that individuals possess the necessary capability, it is likely that they would not concur with their parents regarding specific choices.

The question of the child’s best interests and how to determine how to test it remain contentious despite being addressed by international, African, and domestic legislation.

The principle of prioritising the child’s best interest is also reflected in Article 7 of the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child. This article emphasises that those who are responsible for a child’s education and guidance should always consider their best interests as the guiding principle.

In Nigeria, only the court of competent jurisdiction could determine what constitutes the best interest and, by extension, the faith of the Trinity Guy.

Was the parent compensated by Trinity Guy for the act? What was the amount that was paid? These questions beg for answers.

The parent’s right to give consent on behalf of the minor’s child is not absolute; it stops when it begins to infringe on the child’s fundamental rights.

Isaac Olatunde is an encyclopedist, polemicist with knowledge in bioethics and medicolegal issues.