The Edo State High Court has ruled that restricting human and vehicular movement during the state’s monthly environmental sanitation exercise is unlawful.
Delivering judgment, Justice Isoken Erameh held that enforcing a stay-at-home order between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. on sanitation days violates citizens’ fundamental rights.
The court found the restriction to be inconsistent with Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement, and also in breach of Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Justice Erameh consequently declared the practice unconstitutional and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government, its agents, and representatives from limiting the movement of persons or vehicles during sanitation exercises.
The court also awarded N200,000 as costs to the applicants who instituted the suit.
The ruling is expected to influence how environmental sanitation policies are enforced in the state, particularly in balancing public health measures with constitutional rights.
Reacting to the judgment, the Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organisation, Curtis Ogbebor, commended the decision, noting that “in a constitutional democracy, rights are not suspended by convenience; governance must align with the rule of law, ensuring that even genuine health interventions respect legality, necessity and proportionality.”
Counsel to the applicants, President Aigbokhan, also welcomed the judgment, stressing that while public health remains important, it must be pursued within the framework of the law and backed by proper legal provisions.
He criticised the state government for inadequate logistics to support sanitation exercises, including the absence of sufficient waste collection systems and supervision.
Similarly, Senior Legal Officer of Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre/FOI Counsel, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena, clarified that the ruling does not abolish sanitation exercises but only nullifies movement restrictions.
“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.
