The bill for an Act for the Prohibition of Facial Mutilation, Offences, Prosecution and Punishment of Offenders that passed second reading in the Senate last week is as timely as it is welcome. Sponsored by Senator Dino Melaye (APC-Kogi), the bill is also for the protection of victims under threat of facial mutilation and other related matters. Scarification or tribal marks are features that should not have a place in this age. Even though it was done for a reason in the olden days, some communities still retain the practice, even though they are getting fewer and fewer.
Senator Melaye said Africans once used tribal marks as means of identification. He said in the olden days, members of the same village, tribe or lineage had the same tribal marks which made it easy to identify outsiders. He also said parents used tribal marks to establish the legitimacy of their children. He however said, “The irony of these marks is that it makes victims a subject of mockery by friends. Imagine someone being called a tiger simply because of the thick cheeks resulting from facial marks. These people have been subjected to different reactions. Some have lamented the marks that are bequeathed on them as generational inheritance. Some of them have developed low self-esteem and most times are treated with scorn and ridicule including rejection by female folks.”
Senator Melaye said that besides the health implication of the practice, it was an infringement on the rights of children. Apart from means of identification among communities during wars, there is also a darker side to tribal marks, which were once used as instruments of social stratification and castes. In some societies certain trades such as butchers were stigmatized and they had their own type of tribal marks. By mere seeing the tribal marks, people would decline to marry from such a family.
In other words, it humiliated such people as lowly anywhere they went, making them believe that they were lesser men and women. The inferiority complex they suffered would definitely have an impact on the height they would have attained. The biggest disservice is that the tribal marks are done to children when they have no say in the matter. It is only when they grow up and are mocked or are interrogated that the full impact of it faces them. And it is too late since they cannot erase it and have to live with it for the rest of their lives, which is a huge burden for one to carry.
We agree that tribal marks served a useful social and security purpose at some time in the past as a means of identification during conflicts. However, it is no longer important. What we need is unity among Nigerians where everybody would have a sense of belonging wherever he may be in the country, without being identified with some ethnic group or even some socially looked down upon profession. Still, if some citizens insist on their right to have marks on their faces, the law can allow it provided it is made optional for adults. If a person reaches eighteen years and still wants to have the marks, the law can permit that but no one should visit small children with these marks anymore.
It is true that in the modern day, youths especially have invented other means of scarification such as tattoos, which sometimes emblazon limbs, faces and the whole body. Many people who make tattoos on their bodies tend to regret it with time but it is often too late to erase. Such cases of youthful exuberance cannot be tamed through laws. All that we insist is that they must no longer be inflicted on children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
