The Position Of The Law On Power Of Environmental Officer To Restrict Citizen’s Right Of Movement On Sanitation Day

This article critically examines the legality of movement restrictions by environmental sanitation officers on citizen during designated sanitation days in Nigeria. While environmental cleanliness is essential for public health, it raises a constitutional question: can a citizen right of movement guaranteed by section 41 of the 1999 constitution( as amended) ,be lawfully limited by non – legislative  action. The paper explore the legal basis ( or lack thereof) for these restrictions, evaluate relevant court decision and consider whether such enforcement align with constitution and human right standards. It argues that unless backed up by law , such act or restrictions amount to violation of the citizens constitutional right and calls for proper legal framework that balances environmental protection with civil liberties .

  The position of the law on freedom of movement is clearly stated  in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria. By virtue of SECTION 41 of the 1999 constitution,  every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part of the country.

      This provision guarantees that no citizen of Nigeria shall be restricted from moving freely, except in certain circumstances reasonably justifiable by the constitution as stated in SECTION 45 of the 1999 constitution.

According to Aare Ae Babalola , SAN :

 ‘There is no law empowering the enforcement of law agencies to restrict the movement of Nigerians on days designated as environmental sanitation’.

   This view is supported  by SECTION 36(12) of the 1999 constitution and this position was judicially confirmed  in the case of OKAFOR v LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT where the court held that the restriction of movement by 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on sanitation days, and the arrest of people during that period violated SECTION 41 of the 1999 constitution.

 For instance, in Ondo State, the arrest of 64 persons on july 29 2023 by the environmental sanitation officer for alleged violation of environmental law amounted to an infringement of constitutional rights . In the Okafor v  Lagos State government, Justice Idris stated : 

’An executive directive of a state does not amount to a written law that anyone could be arrested or detained thereof .

Similarly, in the case of Barr. Mayor Asiegbu v Anambra State Government, the court held that the restriction of movement on sanitation days is illegal, unconstitutional, and null and void for reason of inconsistency with SECTION 41 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Same decision was also held in the case of Prince Azubuikev Attorney General Of Rivers State.

However, there may be conflicting view that the restriction of movement is for the protection of public interest and public health guaranteed by SECTION 45 of the 1999 constitution, but the court  in the case of Director Of Public Prosecution v Chike Obi held that it is the duty of the court to decide which law is reasonably justifiable. Therefore since the court has not in any case admitted that the restriction and arrest of people walking or moving on sanitation day is lawful, the power to restrict and arrest people movement on sanitation days is unconstitutional and legally unfounded.

---

About Author

NEJO GBENGA EMMANUEL is a 400 Level law student of Igbinedion university. He is open to legal opportunities that might come his way. His area of interest include constitutional law, criminal law, law, international law etc. He is interested in legal research and public advocacy.