PoliteActivist:


Within count 2 he was convicted of child trafficking but NOT ABDUCTION because the girl said she went willingly..
See below

That is your own opinion. You are free to express. But it does not make it right...

Count 2 is clear enough:

Count two: “That you, Yunusa Dahiru, abducted Ese Oruru by means of coercion, transported and harboured her in Kano State and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13(2)(b) of the Trafficking in Persons (prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.”

There was an abduction via coercion, transportation and harbouring. Hence, we was sentence to 5 years for it...

[s]

Fearlez:


The sections on the Sex offenders act was split.

It started with section 7, (1) stating "A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence called defilement"

The law states anyone below 18 is a child. See the relevant section of the constitution.

Then section 7 (2) states (2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.



Then 7, (3) and 4 States

A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

‎(4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

Going by subsection 3 ,can it be applied that age of consent is 15? Subsection 4 tells you if you sleep with a girl between the ages of 16 to 18 it's life imprisonment.

How on earth did you read section 7 and came up with the conclusion 11 year old can give consent.

Depraved bastard. Psychotic paedophile!
When we call you a paedophile, it's no curse. When we call you a product of interrupted education, it's no curse. You're a waste to humanity.

We know you have an ego and false sense of pride way bigger than your destiny.

But I have humbled you, out-cursed you and out-fact you

Type me another olodo again.

Shameless internet debris!!!

[/s]

Olodo! I choose the courts and their judgments based on their interpretation of our laws over your stupid analysis anytime anyday... I didn;t even read the drivel...

Age of consent is 11!!

CanadaOrBust:


If it’s so categorical how come u don’t see anyone sentenced to life? How come the person below was not sentenced to life??

Exactly what should be a source of concern

Yinusa too was not sentenced to life imprisonment...

CanadaOrBust:


Once below 18 11 it is called defilement regardless of age because they are too young to give consent. Once consent comes into consideration it is called RAPE!

Fixed! The courts and lawyers interpret it that way. And there are 2 valid court judgments to back my point up...

this attempt by some people to mislead,misinterpret and to distort the rulings of the honorary justices of the supreme court should stop!

He senior supreme court justice inyang did not err in his interpretation of the law on the case been flaunted by virginfinder.
the case was based on a law that was in 1976


imagine "Section 218 of the Criminal Code Cap.48 Vol. II laws of the Defunct Bendel State 1976".


this law has been rested since !

the current law at hand is the child act of 2003 and no other provision has overtaken it

CanadaOrBust:


That’s mere speculation on your part too

The dailies have given their reports of the proceedings of that judgment. What they have reported is what the world is reading not your opinion.

You are to prove that they gave false reports. Nevertheless, it remains ordinary academic exercise... It doesn not change anything. It won't raise the age of consent from 11 to 18.

baralatie:
this attempt by some people to mislead,misinterpret and to distort the rulings of the honorary justices of the supreme court should stop!

He senior supreme court justice inyang did not err in his interpretation of the law on the case been flaunted by virginfinder.
the case was based on a law that was in 1976


imagine "Section 218 of the Criminal Code Cap.48 Vol. II laws of the Defunct Bendel State 1976".


this law has been rested since !

the current law at hand is the child act of 2003 and no other provision has overtaken it

Where did you see the bolded

Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC
The above notable and profound pronouncement forms part of the ipsissima verba of my lord, the Hon. Justice Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when he delivered the leading Judgment on Friday, 30th January, 2015 in the case of BONIFACE ADONIKE v. THE STATE (2015) 7 N.W.L.R (pt 1458) 237 at 266 paragraphs B-D. The case of Boniface Adonike (Supra) once more brings to the fore the duty on sentencing authorities to show in the application of the law that society abhors cases of defilement of young girls. The law on defilement of under-aged girls in Nigeria is provided in Section 218 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 42, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. The section provides that “any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without whipping”. Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without whipping. A prosecution for either of the offences defined above in this section must be begun within two months after the offence is committed. A person cannot be convicted of either of the offences defined in this section upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness."

Does it make sense to you that a judge will deliver a judgement in 2015 based on the laws of 1976 when we have the CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-2004

FYI, the judment above was based on the CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-2004. The sexual offences bill of 2015 had not been passed as at January 2015.

for those who choose to understand I will paste the full court document of the said case in the next line below this.take your time to read understand and stop insult the supreme court judges

you can read the full case at this link below


https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2015/2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjxptis0MPqAhUPGewKHamECrQQFjAHegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2LkwMNYunMzX9gbVLzWPpO

CanadaOrBust:


What’s the difference? Spell it out. Educate us

It's very tricky actually...

7. (1) A person who commits an act which causes
Defilement
penetration with a child is guilty of an offence called
of children
defilement. (2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

(4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years old is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life.

Study the bolded well. There lies the difference between section 7 (2) and the rest.

baralatie:
for those who choose to understand I will paste the full court document of the said case in the next line below this.take your time to read understand and stop insult the supreme court judges

you can read the full case at this link below


https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2015/2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjxptis0MPqAhUPGewKHamECrQQFjAHegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2LkwMNYunMzX9gbVLzWPpO

Bro, there is a CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-2004 and the sexual offences bill of 2015 (passed in May 2015). They stipulated 13 and 11 as the age of consent respectively.

No judge in January 2015 could ever base his judgment on the child rights of 2003 or the laws of 1976!

I am here now, the rabble-rousers are nowhere to be found.

When I go to bed, they will show up and start their party.

I am ready for you all.

I have 2 valid court judgments on my side. I am on the side of law.

If you want the age of consent to be 18, petition your lawmakers to ask for it.

What we have now has technically pegged it at 11.Too bad!

I propose that while pegging the age of consent to 18, it should apply to only girls that are still virgins.

Once a girl is under 18 and no more a virgin, she should be adjudged to be able to give consent.

baralatie:
for those who choose to understand I will paste the full court document of the said case in the next line below this.take your time to read understand and stop insult the supreme court judges

you can read the full case at this link below


https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2015/2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjxptis0MPqAhUPGewKHamECrQQFjAHegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2LkwMNYunMzX9gbVLzWPpO

The judge based his judgement on the CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-2004 and not one outdated law of 1976. Haba!

At the time, the sexual offences bill of 2015 had not yet been passed!!

VirginFinder:


Bro, there is a CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-2004 and the sexual offences bill of 2015 (passed in May 2015). They stipulated 13 and 11 as the age of consent respectively.

No judge in January 2015 could ever base his judgment on the child rights of 2003 or the laws of 1976!

i can see you have not read the supreme court case file/report on the case

go and read it from top to bottom

VirginFinder:


Hey! I don't live on Nairaland. You disappeared for over one hour after I made my last post. So I should be waiting for you and not do what I have to do
I am a family man FYI...

Wonders shall never end! U still haven’t disappeared ??!! I know there is pride but this is ridiculous

baralatie:

i can see you have not read the supreme court case file/report on the case

go and read it from top to bottom

Where is it Is the judgment below not clear enough

Defilement of Under-aged Girls: What is the Verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria?

Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC
The above notable and profound pronouncement forms part of the ipsissima verba of my lord, the Hon. Justice Okoro, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when he delivered the leading Judgment on Friday, 30th January, 2015 in the case of BONIFACE ADONIKE v. THE STATE (2015) 7 N.W.L.R (pt 1458) 237 at 266 paragraphs B-D. The case of Boniface Adonike (Supra) once more brings to the fore the duty on sentencing authorities to show in the application of the law that society abhors cases of defilement of young girls. The law on defilement of under-aged girls in Nigeria is provided in Section 218 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 42, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. The section provides that “any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without whipping”. Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without whipping. A prosecution for either of the offences defined above in this section must be begun within two months after the offence is committed. A person cannot be convicted of either of the offences defined in this section upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.

CanadaOrBust:


Wonders shall never end! U still haven’t disappeared ??!! I know there is pride but this is ridiculous

In fact, I am surprised that you guys are still desperately grasping unto straws...

Who argues with valid court judgments especially that of the Supreme Court

VirginFinder:


Exactly what should be a source of concern

Yinusa too was not sentenced to life imprisonment...

U r the one who said it is categorical.
I wanted u to Indicate your own fallacy yourself. And u have!
THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case.
U have now admitted it yourself: judges don’t always follow the written law!

CanadaOrBust:


U r the one who said it is categorical.
I wanted u to Indicate your own fallacy yourself. And u have!
THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case.
U have now admitted it yourself: judges don’t always follow the written law!

They do! But they temper justice with mercy while delivering their judgments based on the law. They will convict the accused where he is found guilty but may decide to give him a milder a sentence at their discretion.

But they won't change the law or alter it.

Section 7 (2) of the sexual offences bill of 2015 makes it clear that the age of consent is 11.

VirginFinder:


Fixed! The courts and lawyers interpret it that way. And there are 2 valid court judgments to back my point up...

Straw man.
QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case or cases.
You yourself was the first to indicate that judges don’t always follow the law!

VirginFinder:


The dailies have given their reports of the proceedings of that judgment. What they have reported is what the world is reading not your opinion.

You are to prove that they gave false reports. Nevertheless, it remains ordinary academic exercise... It doesn not change anything. It won't raise the age of consent from 11 to 18.

U r the one who said their reportage is accurate.
HOW DO U KNOW?

CanadaOrBust:


Straw man.
QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case or cases.
You yourself was the first to indicate that judges don’t always follow the law!

The age of consent is 11.

I met the phrase "Temper justice with mercy" in this life. I am not the coiner!

Judges are free to temper justice with mercy while following the law...

They deliver their judgements based on the law but may sentence as they wish...

CanadaOrBust:


U r the one who said their reportage is accurate.
HOW DO U KNOW?

Because they all reported the same thing. They can't all be wrong!

From the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, we establish the truth...

Even if you give us your own "accurate" reportage. It won't fly!

VirginFinder:


Where is it Is the judgment below not clear enough

Defilement of Under-aged Girls: What is the Verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria?

read! read! read! read!

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2015/2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi1q7OS4cPqAhVC-qQKHSsGB_AQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1XmB6MvIHa39RLOxJS4ZLO



werger you like it or not
child act 2003 remains that legit law!
you try yourself with 17 years 10 months girl
bye bye

VirginFinder:


It's very tricky actually...



Study the bolded well. There lies the difference between section 7 (2) and the rest.

I know u r not retarded.
What u highlighted deals with PUNISHMENT AFTER THE FACT not age of consent (even assuming there is a difference between “shall” and “liable to” - which there is not!)

CanadaOrBust:


I know u r not retarded.
What u highlighted deals with PUNISHMENT AFTER THE FACT not age of consent (even assuming there is a difference between “shall” and “liable to” - which there is not!)

You missed the point. Those who drafted the law are smarter than you are. And they deliberately drafted it that way to deceive you into believing that the age of consent is 18.

When they say smokers are liable to die young, does it mean they all die young

But if they say, smokers shall die young, isn't that a categorical statement on what awaits a smoker

Hahahahahaha

VirginFinder:


In fact, I am surprised that you guys are still desperately grasping unto straws...

Who argues with valid court judgments especially that of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court also made Uzodinma gov despite it was clear he did forgery.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case or cases.
Answer honesty, from your reading of sec 7 what does it say is the age of consent?

VirginFinder:


They do! But they temper justice with mercy while delivering their judgments based on the law. They will convict the accused where he is found guilty but may decide to give him a milder a sentence at their discretion.

But they won't change the law or alter it.

Section 7 (2) of the sexual offences bill of 2015 makes it clear that the age of consent is 11.

Tell me that as an honest man, you truly believe:
Section 7 (2) of the sexual offences bill of 2015 makes it clear that the age of consent is 11.

CanadaOrBust:


Supreme Court also made Uzodinma gov despite it was clear he did forgery.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE AGE OF CONSENT??
NOT what is ruled in any particular case or cases.
Answer honesty, from your reading of sec 7 what does it say is the age of consent?

Based on what lawyers and activists have said and the recent court rulings, the age of consent is 11.
What I read in section 7 is too technical to be interpreted by a layman in legal matters like me and is of no consequence altogether.
I have to rely on what legal ogas-at-the-top say.

CanadaOrBust:


Tell me that as an honest man, you truly believe:
Section 7 (2) of the sexual offences bill of 2015 makes it clear that the age of consent is 11.

That's what intelligent activists, lawyers and judges have made of the section not me!

Who am I

VirginFinder:


The age of consent is 11.

I met the phrase "Temper justice with mercy" in this life. I am not the coiner!

Judges are free to temper justice with mercy while following the law...

They deliver their judgements based on the law but may sentence as they wish...

And from your reading of sec 7 it spells it out clearly that age of consent is 11? You say that as an honest family man?

CanadaOrBust:


And from your reading of sec 7 it spells it out clearly that age of consent is 11? You say that as an honest family man?

That's what the activists, lawyers and judges have said. Not me!

Who am I

My job as a family man is to by God's grace shield my children from sexual predators. And bring them up in the way of the LORD.

VirginFinder:


The age of consent is 11.

I met the phrase "Temper justice with mercy" in this life. I am not the coiner!

Judges are free to temper justice with mercy while following the law...

They deliver their judgements based on the law but may sentence as they wish...

Reading sec 7 u arrive at the conclusion that age of consent is 11. U swear that in your honor?