Recently, a Lagos High Court pronounced a verdict that restriction of movement during monthly environmental sanitation exercise is unjustifiable and an infringement. But looking at the circumstances surrounding the restriction, could it be called an infringement? Senior Correspondent, ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA, writes on various reactions.
The judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has continued to attract comments from human rights activists, lawyers and concerned individuals.
The judge had, penultimate Monday, while giving his verdict on the suit filed by a Lagos lawyer and human rights activist, Ebun-Olun Adegboruwa, challenging the restriction of movement by Lagos State government during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise on the last Saturday of every month, declared that restriction of movement during the exercise is illegal and grossly violates Nigerians’ right to freedom of movement as guaranteed in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The judge said: “There is no law in Lagos barring or restricting the movement of people during environmental sanitation and no such law has been shown to the court.
“The restriction of movement during sanitation is unjustifiable and a gross infringement on the applicant’s personal liberty.
“I have no doubt that the restrictions imposed on the movement of persons and sanctions meted out to those who breach them are clearly unsupportable in law and unjustified.
“I must state loud and clear that the environmental sanitation exercise is not in itself unlawful, but what is unlawful and unconstitutional is the restriction imposed by the respondents during the exercise,” Justice Idris held.
Reacting immediately after the judgment was delivered, Adegboruwa (applicant) said: “It is a signal to all those in power, across the land, local, state and federal, that the rule of arbitrariness, of impunity and of wanton disregard for people’s rights and freedoms is gradually coming to an end.
“When we dare to struggle, then we dare to win. I therefore urge all Nigerians to troop to the courts, to challenge the unchallengeable, to kick against the arbitrary PHCN (Power Holding Company of Nigeria) impositions, all illegal charges and tax imposition and all obnoxious policies wickedly devised by all our rulers. Together we shall win.”
A Lagos-based lawyer, Adekunle Salami, who has been practising for about 13 years, maintained that the constitution of the country is supreme and therefore should be followed. He said the restriction of movement by Lagos State government was not enshrined in the constitution and therefore was void, pointing out that only a court of competent jurisdiction could restrict movement of persons, either by way of imprisonment or any other way known to law.
“The fact that people were asked to stay at home for hours in order to keep their environment clean was an infringement of their rights and therefore void,” Salami submitted.
The judge made the decision based on the facts before the court, and that there was no existing law backing such decision.
However, the executive director of Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa (Rafsanjani), said there is nothing wrong with the restriction of movement during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise, provided that it is for public interest and not for selfish reasons. He posited that restriction of movement in such circumstance does not amount to infringement on freedom of movement of any individual, adding that the exercise is to keep our environment clean and free from contagious diseases.
He said that the judgment is faulty because the interest of the public was not considered, pointing out that without restriction of movement, people will not participate in the exercise, which is meant to keep our environment clean.
A Lagos lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Emeka Ngige, said the court interpreted the law as it deemed fit, stressing that since the Lagos State government has appealed against the judgment, a higher court should make a higher pronouncement.
“We cannot jettison the exercise. The government can restrict movement. The government has a duty to ensure that we live in a very clean environment. That is the essence of the exercise,” Ngige said.
“It is just three hours. We have been on it since 1984. Personally, I do not agree with the decision, but the court has decided. I think the Lagos State government should take the judgment on appeal.”
National vice president of Lawyers in the Media, Mrs. Vera Chinwuba, is not comfortable with the court’s decision on restriction of movement during monthly environmental exercise.
“Cleanliness is next to Godliness,” she remarked, adding that Nigerians have to be compelled to carry out certain duties. Besides, she said it is a moral obligation and, therefore, Nigerians have to map out few hours in a month to tidy their environment.
According to her, if the restriction is removed, people will no longer stay indoors and carry out the exercise, pointing out that nobody will be interested or eager to carry out the exercise.
“I did not very much favour the court’s decision,” Chinwuba added.
