The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled against a lawsuit aimed at preventing the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting commercial sex workers in the capital.
On Wednesday, Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment, stating that the plaintiff’s application was fundamentally flawed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules of 2009.
Justice Omotosho concluded that even if the application had been valid, the requests made by the plaintiff lacked merit and were therefore dismissed.
The case was brought forth by a group known as the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women, and the Indigent.
They named AEPB, the FCT Minister, the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as respondents.
The lawsuit was initiated on May 14, 2024, with legal representation from Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs, and Victor Eboh.
The plaintiffs sought to clarify whether AEPB’s responsibilities under Section 6 of its Act extended to actions such as harassment and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work on Abuja’s streets.
They also argued that referring to these women as “articles” or “goods for purchase” during legal proceedings constituted discrimination under Section 42 of Nigeria’s Constitution.
The plaintiffs requested an injunction against AEPB from conducting arrests or raids on suspected sex workers and sought to ensure proper enforcement of environmental laws by AEPB.
However, in response, representatives for Wike and AEPB filed a counter affidavit denying all claims made by the plaintiffs.
They contended that no evidence had been presented to substantiate allegations of harassment or wrongful arrests.
Ahmed Gidado, a legal assistant involved in drafting this counter affidavit, asserted that previous judgments cited by the plaintiffs were irrelevant as they did not pertain directly to their case.
He emphasized that fundamental rights cannot be enforced by individuals who are not direct victims of violations.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho identified three key issues for consideration: whether an individual can enforce another person’s rights through legal action; whether this court had jurisdiction over such a fundamental rights suit; and whether any reliefs sought could be granted based on existing circumstances.
While he acknowledged that NGOs can advocate for others’ rights within legal frameworks, he ultimately determined that this particular suit could not proceed under fundamental rights enforcement procedures due to its nature.
He noted that while freedom from discrimination is a recognized right under Section 42 of Nigeria’s Constitution, it was ancillary to broader claims regarding environmental protection laws.
Justice Omotosho further elaborated on Nigeria’s Penal Code Act which categorizes prostitution as an offense.
He stated that allowing individuals engaged in prostitution to operate freely would undermine societal morals and public order.
The judge highlighted cultural considerations regarding prostitution in Nigeria compared to other nations where it may be legalized.
He pointed out that Nigerian culture does not condone prostitution and described it as an immoral act contrary to societal values.
Justice Omotosho referenced various sections of both national law and international human rights charters to underscore his position on maintaining public morality.
He concluded by expressing concern over what message organizations like Lawyers Alert Initiative send when they seek legal protections for individuals engaged in activities deemed socially unacceptable.
The judgment serves as a reaffirmation of existing laws governing public conduct concerning commercial sex work within Nigeria’s capital.
Overall, Justice Omotosho ruled firmly against any attempts to legally protect commercial sex workers from arrest or prosecution under current laws governing such activities in Abuja.
