A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a suit seeking fundamental rights for commercial sex workers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to operate without intimidation from security agencies of the federal government.
In a judgement delivered on Wednesday, the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, held that prostitutes have no legal rights to enjoy under any known law or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The judge said that commercial sex workers were even liable to be arrested and prosecuted for a jail term of two years under the criminal law known as the Penal Code.
A Non-Governmental Organisation, Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protection of Rights of Children, Women and Indigents, had sued the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB), FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, the commercial sex workers had sought to stop the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, and the AEPB from harassing, intimidating, arresting and prosecuting them in Abuja.
They asked the judge to enforce their fundamental human rights to prostitution as enshrined in Nigerian law and to also determine whether the duties of the AEPB under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, extend to the harassment, arrest, detention and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
“Whether by the provision of Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, women can be regarded as articles or their bodies regarded as goods for purchase.”
The lawyers, therefore, sought a declaration that the charge made by the personnel of the AEPB before the FCT Mobile Court, which referred to arrested women suspected of engaging in sex work as “articles” and considered their bodies as “goods for purchase,” is discriminatory and violated the provisions of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
They sought a declaration that the duties of the board do not extend to the harassment, arrest and raid of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
The lawyers also sought a declaration that neither Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, nor any extant laws of the country authorise the board to arrest women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They further sought a declaration that Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, does not refer to women as “articles” or their bodies regarded as “goods for purchase.”
The lawyers, therefore, prayed the court for an order restraining the AEPB, its agents or privies, from harassing, arresting and raiding women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They sought an order restraining the 1st respondent, her agents or privies from prosecuting women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, as well as an order directing all the respondents to ensure proper application of the provisions of the Abuja Environmental Protection Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent.
Justice Omotosho, in his judgement, held that the application of the plaintiff was incompetent under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 and that, even if it was competent, “the reliefs sought are not grantable and thus, it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
“This court wonders what kind of message the applicant was sending when it decided to bring an action to protect prostitutes. A reasonable person would have expected that the applicant would, instead, occupy itself with developing the girl child and protecting the sanctity of womanhood instead of promoting immorality and the spread of sexual diseases.
“It is indeed shameful that the applicant should file an action such as this,” the judge held and added that prostitution constitutes an offence under the Penal Code Act.
According to him, it must be stated here that fundamental human rights in Nigeria are not absolute in operation. “There are instances which warrant a legal breach of some rights. A common instance is the arrest of a person suspected of committing an offence under Section 35(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“The women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja or prostitutes or vagabonds are by their actions committing an offence, and thus, their fundamental rights can be legally breached by the 1st respondent.
“Holding a different opinion would mean that a person arrested in the process of robbing others can claim to be entitled to his fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom. This would cause anarchy and chaos in society,” he said.
Assuming that prostitution is not an offence in the FCT, the judge said the rights of these prostitutes can legally be violated under Section 45 of the Constitution, which allows the breach of a person’s right on grounds of defence, public safety, public health, public order and public morality.
“It is a known fact that prostitutes are some of the clearest examples of indecency in society, and they are champions of immorality through their immoral dressing, exposing sensitive parts of their bodies, their use of vulgar language, as well as the chief culprits in spreading sexual diseases.
“Allowing prostitutes to have free reign on the streets of Abuja will, in no time, destroy the moral fibre of the city and turn it into a hotbed of immorality. This court will not allow such to happen,” he said.
“I daresay that prostitution is alien and has never been part of our culture. Prostitution, or ‘Olosho’ and ‘Ashewo’ as the Yorubas call it, ‘Akwuna-Akwuna’ as the Igbos call it, ‘Karuwa’ as the Hausas call it, or ‘Hookup’ as the young people say it, is alien to our culture.
“It has been frowned upon as a deeply immoral act worthy of shame. The fact that civilisation and westernisation have taken some root in Nigeria still does not make it right. Even in some Western countries, prostitution is still seen as an immoral act.
“There is absolutely no justification for prostitution in Nigeria in the context of our cultural norms and tradition, and, in fact, prostitution is an anathema in Africa,” he said, and held that the prostitutes which the group sought to protect “are vagabonds,” and the AEPB is well within its right to arrest and prosecute them as they constitute nuisance in the FCT and are clearly committing an offence by parading themselves as “women of easy virtue.”
“I therefore hold that this application filed by the applicant has no basis and the rights claimed are unenforceable in light of the provisions of Section 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Preamble to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights,” the judge held.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then