The Edo State High Court has declared unlawful the restriction of human and vehicular movement during the state’s environmental sanitation exercise, in a landmark judgment delivered on Thursday.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Isoken Urhomwen Erameh held that the enforcement of a stay-at-home order between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on sanitation days violates citizens’ constitutional rights.
The court found the restriction inconsistent with Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees freedom of movement, and in breach of Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Justice Erameh consequently declared the restriction unlawful and unconstitutional, and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government, its agents and privies from further limiting movement of persons or vehicles during sanitation exercises.
The court also awarded ₦200,000 in costs to the applicants.
The judgment is expected to significantly impact the enforcement of environmental sanitation in Edo State, particularly in balancing public health measures with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Reacting, Curtis Ogbebor, Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organization, commended the ruling, stressing that governance must align with the rule of law and respect citizens’ rights.
Counsel to the applicants, President Aigbokhan, also hailed the decision, noting that while public health remains important, it must be pursued within legal bounds and supported by proper statutory authority.
He further criticised the state government for inadequate logistics for sanitation exercises, arguing that enforcement has relied heavily on movement restrictions rather than effective waste management systems.
Also speaking, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena, Senior Legal Officer at the Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre/FOI Counsel, clarified that the judgment does not abolish sanitation exercises but only invalidates movement restrictions.
According to him, the ruling redirects the government toward its primary responsibility of properly coordinating and supporting sanitation activities, rather than enforcing compliance through arrests and restrictions.