A Prosecutorial Submission on Coercion, Child Protection and Armed-Group Association
Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif | Prosecutor
21 August 2024 | Somalia
Overview
On 21 August 2024, during court proceedings involving a group of underage girls, I delivered a submission addressing their age and vulnerability, the circumstances that had brought them before the Court, the responsibility attributed to their parents, and the need to place child protection at the centre of the judicial response.
According to the investigation and the case presented before the Court, the girls were minors between approximately 14 and 17 years of age. The circumstances established during the investigation indicated that they had not freely chosen the situation in which they found themselves. The prosecution case was that their parents had compelled them towards association with adult men linked to Al-Shabaab.
Somali authorities intercepted the girls in Mogadishu at a vehicle departure point before their journey could continue towards the individuals with whom they had allegedly been compelled to associate.
The intervention was important because it prevented the girls from continuing into an environment associated with an armed group and potentially exposed to active conflict and other serious risks. The subsequent investigation established their young ages and raised important questions about coercion, vulnerability, parental responsibility and the appropriate role of the justice system in protecting children.
My position before the Court was that a clear distinction had to be made between the children and the adults alleged to have placed them in those circumstances.
The fact that the girls had been travelling towards individuals associated with Al-Shabaab could not, in my submission, be considered in isolation from their ages or from the circumstances surrounding their journey. It was necessary to ask how children between the ages of fourteen and seventeen had come to be travelling towards such an environment, who had influenced or directed them, and whether they had genuinely exercised a free and independent choice.
The investigation indicated that coercion was an important part of those circumstances. Their young ages and vulnerability therefore had to be central considerations when determining the appropriate judicial response.
I asked the Court not to treat the girls simply according to where they were travelling or the individuals with whom they were allegedly going to associate. Instead, I requested that the Court recognise them as children requiring protection and consider separately the alleged responsibility of the adults who had placed them in that position.
I therefore requested that the girls be released and not returned directly to the same parental environment that, according to the case presented before the Court, had compelled them towards association with adult members of Al-Shabaab.
Instead, I asked the Court to transfer them to UNICEF so that they could enter an appropriate child-protection framework and receive the protection, care and support required by their circumstances.
At the same time, I requested that the Court consider appropriate legal action against the parents alleged to have been responsible for placing the children in those circumstances.
My submission was therefore based on a clear distinction: accountability for the responsible adults and protection for the children subjected to coercion.
An important part of the submission concerned not only what had already happened to the girls, but also what would happen to them after the proceedings.
The intervention of the Somali authorities had prevented them from continuing towards an environment associated with an armed group. Simply returning them to the same circumstances from which the case had arisen could therefore have undermined the protection achieved through that intervention.
For that reason, I asked the Court to prioritise both their immediate safety and their longer-term welfare through an appropriate child-protection arrangement.
This approach also corresponds with the broader child-protection framework described by UNICEF Somalia for children affected by association with armed forces or armed groups. UNICEF describes a child-rights approach that includes protection, interim care and reintegration support, particularly where returning a child to previous caregivers may create security concerns.
The Court ultimately accepted the child-protection aspect of my submission.
The girls were not returned to their parents. Instead, the Court ordered that they be transferred to UNICEF for protection and appropriate care, and that transfer was subsequently carried out.
I welcomed the outcome because it recognised the distinction I had sought to place before the Court: the children required protection, while questions concerning the alleged responsibility of the adults who had placed them in those circumstances had to be considered separately.
For me, this was a particularly meaningful outcome of the proceedings.
The authorities had intervened before the girls continued towards a potentially dangerous environment, and the subsequent judicial decision ensured that they would not simply be returned to the circumstances that had placed them at risk. Instead, the judicial process produced a protective outcome centred on their safety, welfare and future.
The case also demonstrated an important intersection between criminal justice, child protection, coercion, parental responsibility and national-security concerns.
When children are found in circumstances connected with an armed group, their presence alone may not explain how they came to be there. Their age, vulnerability, possible coercion and the conduct of the adults responsible for them may all be important in determining the appropriate legal and protective response.
For prosecutors, the case demonstrated another important professional principle: prosecution is not solely about seeking punishment. It also requires presenting the circumstances fairly and comprehensively so that the Court can distinguish responsibility, vulnerability and protection needs when reaching its decisions.
In this case, my submission sought to make precisely that distinction—between children whom the investigation indicated had been subjected to coercion and the adults alleged to have been responsible for placing them in that position.
The Court's decision to transfer the girls into a child-protection framework therefore represented an important conclusion to the proceedings and demonstrated how the judicial process can combine accountability with protection when the circumstances require it.
Courtroom Video
Original Language: Somali
Date: 21 August 2024
Speaker: Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif
Role: Prosecutor
Location: Somalia
Subject: Child Protection, Coercion and Parental Responsibility
The video below contains part of the submission I delivered before the Court concerning the underage girls, their circumstances, parental responsibility and the need for a protective response.
Because the original presentation was delivered in Somali, an edited and consolidated English transcript and translation is provided below for international viewers.