Nigeria: The practice of tribal markings on male children, including groups that engage in the practice; whether the parents of a child can refuse to have the practice carried out, including consequences of such a refusal; state protection available (2012-2013)

1. Overview

Various sources indicate that, historically, the practice of tribal markings, or scarification, was used in Nigeria for identification purposes, as people were frequently separated from family members due to kidnappings related to communal conflict or the slave trade, and it became necessary to scar their faces to indicate their heritage (APA 15 June 2013; Nigerian Tribune 21 May 2013; Global Post 11 Oct. 2012). Tribal markings were also historically considered to be a form of beautification (Nigerian Tribune 21 May 2013; Researcher 17 Dec. 2013). In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a researcher and lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ibadan, who has researched tribal markings in different parts of the country, added that tribal marks were also considered a sign of wealth because the procedure was expensive (ibid.).

Sources also identify other reasons for engaging in the practice, including:

initiation into age grades, cults, and other groups (APA 15 June 2013);

to secure good health (Nigerian Tribune 21 May 2013); and

to obtain protection from danger or threats (Global Post 11 Oct. 2012; Researcher 17 Dec. 2013).

Sources indicate that the practice of tribal markings is generally carried out on children (APA 15 June 2013; Global Post 11 Oct. 2012). There is reportedly no traditional gender differentiation, and both male and female children may have tribal marks (Researcher 17 Dec. 2013). The pattern of the marks and the traditions associated with tribal markings may vary depending on the bearer's ethnic group or family (ibid.).

Sources indicate that the practice of tribal markings was historically common across all of Nigeria (ibid.; Global Post 11 Oct. 2012). According to the University of Ibadan researcher, it was especially prevalent among the Yoruba, although not all Yoruba tribes engaged in the practice (Researcher 17 Dec. 2013). Various other sources also report on tribal markings among Yoruba groups (Nigerian Tribune 21 May 2013; This Is Africa 23 Aug. 2012; APA 15 June 2013).

An article published by the African Press Agency (Agence de presse africaine, APA) lists the following ethnic groups as those that traditionally have "some of the most invasive scars": the Jarawa in Plateau and Igala states, Yoruba (including the Oyo and Ondo), Hausa, Kanuri, and Nupe (ibid.). The researcher also mentioned that tribal marking was practiced among Hausa and Igbo groups (17 Dec. 2013). He noted, however, that whether a person has tribal markings would depend not only on their ethnic group but also on their compound and family (ibid.).

2. Legislation

Nigeria's 2003 Child Rights Act declares that "[n]o person shall tattoo or make a skin mark or cause any tattoo or skin mark to be made on a child" (Sec. 24(1)), defining a "skin mark" as "any ethnic or ritual cuts on the skin which leaves permanent marks" (Sec. 277). According to the law, the penalty for violating this provision is a fine of up to 5,000 Nigerian naira [about C$ 34 (XE 19 Dec. 2013)] or a prison term of up to a month, or both (Nigeria 2003, Sec. 24(2)).

According to UNICEF, the Child Rights Act supersedes all other legislation relating to the rights of the child, including legislation enacted at the state level (UN Apr. 2011, 2). UNICEF indicates further that all Nigerian "states are expected to formally adopt and adapt the Act for domestication as state laws" and to amend or annul existing laws that contravene the Act (ibid.). The APA similarly writes that Nigeria's National Human Rights Commission ordered all 36 states to adopt the Act (15 June 2013).

Both Vanguard 29 June 2010) and UNICEF (UN Apr. 2011, 2) say that 24 of Nigeria's 36 states had passed the Child Rights Act into law in their own jurisdiction, both naming the following 22 states: Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Anambra, Benue, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Ekiti, Imo, Jigawa, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nassarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, and Taraba. UNICEF also names Ebonyi and Bayelsa states (UN Apr. 2011, 2). In its 2013 report on Nigeria, Amnesty International reported that twelve states had yet to adopt the legislation.

3. Contemporary Prevalence

Sources suggest that the tradition of tribal markings is waning because of the laws that prohibit it (APA 15 June 2013; Nigerian Tribune 21 May 2013; Researcher 17 Dec. 2013). For its part, the Nigerian weekly news magazine the Source points to a "sudden disappearance" of the practice in certain states, including Oyo, Ogun, Borno, Osun, and Anambra (19 Nov. 2012). A lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Ibadan, interviewed by the Nigerian Tribune, pointed to the medical risks associated with the procedure, as well as the stigma that is now associated with tribal marks, as explanations for the decline of the practice (21 May 2013). According to the University of Ibadan researcher, the practice has declined because the historical reasons for having tribal marks are no longer relevant: people do not need the marks as identification because they are no longer being kidnapped in ethnic wars, society's definition of beauty has changed over time, and belief systems have changed over time due to the influence of Christianity and the West (Researcher 17 Dec. 2013).

The researcher stated that, in his experience, tribal marks "no longer have a wide appeal" among Nigerians and that it is, nowadays, very rare to see tribal marks on children (ibid.). He added that there is generally a "good" level of awareness of the law that prohibits tribal markings, even in rural areas, because of the high level of media penetration across the country due to new technologies (ibid.). He stated that, based on his research on the topic in different parts of the country, there is not very much resistance to the ban on tribal marks (ibid.). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

In contrast to the above, however, the Ibadan-based Nigerian Tribune writes in a 2013 article that "many young faces are still seen around the streets with different patterns of tribal marks on their faces" and interviews a mother whose three-year-old daughter was given tribal marks for good health (21 May 2013). A 2012 Global Post article suggests that the continued prevalence of tribal marks among children reflects some parents' view of "just how dangerous modern Nigeria remains" and demonstrates parents' desire to protect their children "from an array of modern-day threats" (11 Oct. 2012). In 2010, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its "concern" in its concluding observations on Nigeria's third and fourth reports to the committee that the practice of tribal markings or other tattoos on children for identification purposes "still prevails in some parts of the country" (UN 21 June 2010, para. 36). Also in 2010, CNN reported on a Yoruba baby being marked with the identifying scars of its family, whose members are all required to have the same tribal marks, in Osgobo [capital of Osun state] (CNN 21 July 2010). The CNN article suggested, however, that the practice was increasingly limited to rural areas of the country (ibid.).

4. Refusal to Engage in the Practice and Protection Available

According to the University of Ibadan researcher, a parent can obtain protection from the police if they have family members who want to apply tribal markings to their child (Researcher 17 Dec. 2013). The researcher expressed his opinion that there is not very much trouble enforcing the law, even in rural parts of the country, and that usually just the threat of reporting someone to the police for trying to engage in the practice can be enough to deter them (ibid.). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

In contrast to the above, a professor who specializes in rural Nigeria, in the Department of Sociology at the University of Ibadan, wrote in correspondence sent to the Research Directorate that "depending on where one resides, [scarification] may be forced on them [in] rural areas especially" (Professor 14 Dec. 2013). Corroborating or further information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Agence de presse africaine (APA). 15 June 2013. Mohammed Momoh. "The Kick Against Aged Tribal Marks in Nigeria." (Factiva)

Amnesty International (AI). 2013. "Nigeria." Amnesty International Report 2013: The State of the World's Human Rights. [Accessed 19 Dec. 2013]

Cable News Network (CNN). 21 July 2010. Christian Purefoy. "Tribal Scars Custom Drying Up in Nigeria." [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

Global Post. 11 October 2012. Heather Murdock. "The Mark of Danger in Nigeria." [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

Nigeria. 2003. A Bill for an Act to Provide And Protect the Right of the Nigerian Child and Other Related Matters, 2003. [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

Nigerian Tribune [Ibadan]. 21 May 2013. Doyin Adeoye. "Tribal Marks in Modern Nigeria: the Burden, the Anguish." [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

Professor of Sociology, University of Ibadan. 14 December 2013. Correspondence sent to the Research Directorate.

Researcher and lecturer in Sociology, University of Ibadan. 19 December 2013. Telephone interview.

The Source [Lagos]. 19 November 2012. Enakhitare Frances. "Disappearing Marks." Vol. 32, No. 5. [Accessed 17 Dec. 2013]

This is Africa. 23 August 2012. Melinda Ozongwu. "Tribal Marks - the Fading of the 'African Tattoo'." [Accessed 17 Dec. 2013]

United Nations (UN). April 2011. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF Nigeria - Fact Sheet: Child Rights Legislation in Nigeria. [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

______. 21 June 2010. Committee on the Rights of the Child. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. (CRC/C/NGA/CO/3-4) [Accessed 12 Dec. 2013]

Vanguard [Lagos]. 29 June 2010. Chinyere Amalu. "Nigerian Child and the Child Rights Act." [Accessed 17 Dec. 2013]

XE. 19 December 2013. "XE Currency Converter." [Accessed 19 Dec. 2013]

Additional Sources Consulted

Internet sites, including: Al Jazeera; Champion Online News; Daily Independent; Daily Trust; ecoi.net; Factiva; The Guardian; Human Rights Watch; Nigeria - Federal Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development, Nigeria Police Force; Pitt Rivers Museum; The Punch; United States - Department of State; Yorupedia.