The Edo State High Court has declared unlawful the restriction of human and vehicular movement during the state’s environmental sanitation exercise in the case of Curtis Ogbebor & ORS v. AG Edo State (Suit No: B/473/2025) delivered on Thursday, 26th March, 2026.
Justice Isoken Urhomwen Erameh ruled 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.
In its decision, the court held that such restrictions are inconsistent with Section 41(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which guarantees freedom of movement. It further found the measures to be in breach of Articles 12 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Justice Erameh consequently issued a declaration that the prohibition of movement during the sanitation period is unlawful and unconstitutional. The court also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government, its agents, officers, and privies from restricting or interfering with the movement of persons or vehicles within the state on account of any environmental sanitation exercise or related regulation.
In addition, the court awarded ₦200,000 to the applicants as costs for instituting and prosecuting the action.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for environmental sanitation enforcement in Edo State, particularly in how authorities balance public health initiatives with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Reacting to the judgment, Curtis Ogbebor, Executive Director of the Incorporated Trustees of Freedom Ambassadors Organization, commended the judiciary, 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 praised the court, emphasizing that while public health remains a legitimate government concern, it must be pursued within the bounds of the law and supported by clear statutory authority and proportionate safeguards.
He criticized the state government for failing to provide basic logistics, such as waste collection trucks and supervisory personnel, for the monthly sanitation exercise, arguing that enforcement has been reduced largely to movement restrictions carried out by law enforcement agencies relying on broad directives that undermine constitutional guarantees.
On his part, Robinson Ayodele Otuakhena Esq., Senior Legal Officer of Rural Development, Information, and Legal Advocacy Centre/FOI Counsel, who supported the case, clarified that the judgment does not abolish sanitation exercises but rather invalidates the restriction of movement. “The court’s decision,” he said, “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.”
Discussion about this post