By Abasi Ita
The Edo State High Court has declared unconstitutional the restriction of human and vehicular movement during the state’s monthly environmental sanitation exercise.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, 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 the fundamental rights of citizens.
The court ruled that the practice contravenes Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement, and is also inconsistent with Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Justice Erameh consequently declared the restriction unlawful and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government, its agents, and representatives from limiting the movement of persons or vehicles on account of sanitation activities.
The court also awarded the sum of ₦200,000 as costs to the applicants for instituting the suit.
The judgment is expected to reshape the enforcement of environmental sanitation in the state, particularly in balancing public health measures with constitutionally protected freedoms.
Reacting to the ruling, Curtis Ogbebor, Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organization, commended the judiciary for upholding the rule of law. He stressed that in a constitutional democracy, public health interventions must be pursued within legal boundaries and must respect fundamental rights.
Counsel to the applicants, President Aigbokhan, also welcomed the decision, noting that while sanitation is a legitimate government concern, enforcement must be backed by law and guided by proportionate safeguards.
He further criticized the state government for inadequate support for sanitation exercises, including the lack of waste collection logistics and proper supervision, arguing that enforcement has largely relied on restricting movement rather than addressing the root issues.
Also speaking, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena, a legal officer with the Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre and Freedom of Information counsel, clarified that the judgment does not abolish sanitation exercises but only invalidates the restriction of movement.
He said the ruling redirects the government toward its responsibility of properly coordinating sanitation activities instead of penalizing citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.