Banner Online News

The Edo State High Court has struck down the long-standing practice of restricting movement during monthly environmental sanitation exercises, declaring it an unlawful infringement on citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of movement.

In a landmark ruling delivered on Thursday, March 26, 2026, in Curtis Ogbebor & Ors v. Attorney-General of Edo State (Suit No: B/473/2025), Justice Isoken Urhomwen Erameh held that the enforcement of a compulsory sit-at-home order between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on sanitation days is unconstitutional.

The court ruled that such restrictions violate Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every Nigerian the right to move freely. It further held that the policy runs contrary to Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Justice Erameh declared that the prohibition of human and vehicular movement during sanitation periods cannot be justified under the law, stressing that public policy, no matter how well-intentioned, must not override fundamental rights.

The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government and its agents from further enforcing any restriction on movement in the name of environmental sanitation.

In addition, the court awarded ₦200,000 in costs to the applicants.

Reacting to the judgement, Curtis Ogbebor, Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organization, described the ruling as a victory for constitutional democracy.

“In a democracy, rights cannot be suspended for administrative convenience. Even legitimate public health measures must conform to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality,” he said.

Counsel to the applicants, President Aigbokhan, echoed similar sentiments, arguing that while environmental sanitation is important, it must be implemented within the bounds of the law and backed by clear statutory authority.

He criticized the state government for relying on enforcement through movement restrictions rather than providing the necessary infrastructure, such as waste collection systems and proper supervision.

Also weighing in, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena, a legal practitioner and advocate with the Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre, clarified that the ruling does not abolish sanitation exercises but firmly rejects the coercive sit-at-home approach.

According to him, the judgement redirects the government toward its core responsibility, facilitating and managing sanitation, rather than criminalizing citizens for exercising their right to move freely.

The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar sanitation policies across states, reinforcing the principle that governance must operate within constitutional limits.

• POPULAR NEWS9JA