The Presiding Judge, Jos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Ibrahim Galadima, has sentenced a woman, Victoria, to two (2) years’ imprisonment and a fine of N250,000.00 for the human trafficking offence pursuant to the Trafficking in Persons [Prohibition] Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.
The Court ordered Victoria’s name and photo be entered into the national trafficking offenders register and be placed under correctional monitoring upon release in accordance with the law.
From facts, the Defendant, Victoria, was arraigned on a one-count charge of human trafficking. She pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bail in the sum of N5,000,000.00 with one surety in like sum, being a public servant not below Grade Level 14 with landed property.
The prosecution witness testified that his investigative team received intelligence concerning criminal conspiracy and child trafficking involving Victoria. Acting on the report, they arrested her at Anglo D, Jos South Local Government Area.
The prosecution further averred that in June 2024, Victoria attended prayers at a Ministry run by one Pastor Dayo, where she met children and expressed interest in adopting one for her childless sister.
Prosecution stated that Victoria took custody of the 4 children and later transported them to Abia State, Enugu State and Lagos State. During investigation, police recovered all four children and handed them to the Plateau State Commissioner for Women Affairs before reuniting them with their biological parents.
In defence, the defendant- Victoria, contended that the prosecution’s evidence was speculative and that a conviction cannot be founded on speculation. Victoria’s Counsel argued that none of the prosecution witnesses testified that the biological parents of the children withheld consent for adoption.
Counsel argued that Victoria’s conduct did not amount to human trafficking under the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act. Counsel contended that Victoria neither harboured any child for forced labour, slavery nor bondage.
Counsel stressed that trafficking presupposes exploitation, and there was no evidence that the children were held in bondage or that their liberty was under the Defendant’s absolute control.
Counsel maintained that what occurred was merely a failed adoption process. It was argued that if the Defendant truly intended trafficking, she would not have involved a legal practitioner, and if trafficking had indeed occurred, the lawyer ought to have been charged as a co-defendant.
In opposition, the prosecution counsel submitted that it had successfully discharged the burden of proof under the Evidence Act. Counsel maintained that the evidence adduced was compelling, convincing and sufficient to establish guilt as Victoria participated in procuring the victims through Pastor Dayo and moved them to Abia, Lagos and Enugu without parental consent, and that the payments made were not adoption fees but consideration in furtherance of trafficking.
In a well-considered judgment, the presiding judge, Justice Ibrahim Galadima held that the undisputed facts show that Victoria fraudulently took custody of the children on the pretext that they would be cared for, money was paid to Pastor Dayo, the children were taken across state borders, and no valid adoption order was ever secured.
On the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter, Justice Galadima assumed jurisdiction and reiterated that the offence of Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015 (as amended), which criminalises trafficking in persons, including children, and proceedings under the NAPTIP Act involving child trafficking are properly entertainable before the Industrial Court.
Justice Galadima affirmed that where a charge concerns the trafficking or unlawful transfer of a child, the matter is one touching directly on child abuse, child labour, and human trafficking, all of which are within the constitutional competence of the Industrial Court under section 254C of Nigeria’s Constitution.
The Court held that there is no documentary evidence of any lawful adoption process, as no receipts were issued, no court proceedings were commenced, and no adoption order was obtained.
Justice Galadima stressed that the Child Rights Act clearly regulates adoption and places the process under judicial supervision. The Court reiterates that adoption is not a private arrangement to be brokered by individuals or religious institutions, that the law requires transparency, investigation, and judicial approval.
“The explanation offered by the Defendant that she believed Pastor Dayo operated an adoption ministry does not cure the illegality of the process. Even if a lawyer was involved, the Defendant produced no evidence of any legal process before this Court.
“Where children are transferred from one person to another upon payment of money, without lawful authority, parental verification or judicial oversight, the Court cannot ignore the exploitative character of such conduct. The dignity and welfare of the children are placed at risk.
“The Defendant, is hereby found GUILTY as charged.” The Court ruled