The Edo State High Court has nullified the restriction of human and vehicular movement during the state’s environmental sanitation exercise, declaring the practice unconstitutional in a landmark ruling delivered on Thursday.
Delivering judgment, Justice Isoken Urhomwen Erameh held that enforcing a stay-at-home order between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on sanitation days violates citizens’ fundamental rights. The court ruled that the measure is inconsistent with Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees freedom of movement.
The court further found the restriction to be in breach of Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Justice Erameh consequently issued a declaration that the prohibition of movement during sanitation periods is unlawful and unconstitutional. The court also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government, its agents, officers, and privies from restricting or interfering with the movement of persons or vehicles within the state on account of any environmental sanitation exercise or related regulation.
In addition, the court awarded ₦200,000 in costs to the applicants for instituting and prosecuting the case.
The judgment is expected to significantly impact how environmental sanitation exercises are enforced in Edo State, particularly in balancing public health measures with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Reacting to the ruling, Curtis Ogbebor, Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organization, commended the judiciary. He stated that in a constitutional democracy, rights cannot be suspended for convenience, stressing that governance must align with the rule of law and ensure that even legitimate public health interventions adhere to legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Counsel to the applicants, President Aigbokhan, also praised the court, noting that while public health remains a valid concern for government, it must be pursued within legal limits and backed by clear statutory authority and safeguards.
He further criticized the state government for failing to provide essential logistics such as waste collection trucks and supervisory personnel for the monthly sanitation exercise. According to him, enforcement has largely been reduced to movement restrictions carried out by law enforcement agencies based on broad directives that undermine constitutional rights.
Similarly, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena Esq, Senior Legal Officer at the Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre and FOI Counsel, who supported the case, clarified that the ruling does not abolish sanitation exercises. Rather, it invalidates movement restrictions tied to them.
“The court’s decision reorients the state government to its primary responsibility of supporting and supervising sanitation activities, instead of pursuing and arresting citizens for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of movement,” he said.
