The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ruled on a suit seeking to stop the Minister of FCT, Nyesom Wike, and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting commercial sex workers (CSWs) in Abuja.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the plaintiff, under the auspices of the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women, and the Indigent, had instituted the suit.
The group sued the AEPB, the FCT Minister, the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
The originating summons were brought pursuant to Order 3, Rules 6 and 9 of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019; Sections 6(6)(b), 41(1), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In the suit dated and filed on May 14, 2024, by a team of lawyers led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs, and Victor Eboh, the group sought two questions.
The lawyers prayed the court to 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.
They 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,’ was discriminatory and violated the provisions of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
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 (AEPB), 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.
They equally sought an order directing all the respondents to ensure the proper application of the provisions of the Abuja Environmental Protection Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent.
But in a counter-affidavit jointly filed by the minister, AEPB, and FCTA through their lawyer, Betty Umegbulem, the respondents prayed the court to dismiss the case.
They denied all the averments in the applicant’s affidavit.
Ahmed Gidado, a legal assistant who deposed to the counter-affidavit, said the applicant did not file any case against the 1st to 3rd respondents in 2019, as alleged in a previous judgment exhibited in the suit.
Gidado argued that the exhibit attached therein was for a case filed by one Ms. Mirabel Ojimba and not the applicant.
According to him, this honorable court cannot rely on a judgment that is not signed by the presiding judge and duly certified.
He said the applicant did not present any evidence to prove that any woman was harassed or arrested by the AEPB.
He argued that the applicant did not state how its fundamental human rights were violated and which of the rights were violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to warrant the filing of the action.
The officer averred that the applicant was not the person whose fundamental human rights were allegedly violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents.
“The person(s) alleged to have been harassed, arrested, or raided by the 1st to 3rd respondents are not before the court to narrate their side of the story,” he added.
Gidado said the applicant did not specifically mention the rights (as outlined in Chapter IV of the Constitution) violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to enable the respondents to reply to the issues appropriately.
Gidado, who argued that the applicant’s prayers were not in line with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, said fundamental human rights cannot be enforced by another person who is not the victim of the violation.
Also, the AGF, in his counter-affidavit deposed to by Barnabas Onoja, a litigation officer, argued that all the facts, as presented by the applicant, were untrue and misleading.
Onoja said, contrary to the applicant’s submission, the AGF never received any pre-action notice from the applicant and that his office was only aware of the present suit upon receipt of the processes.
He said the AGF does not act as a supervisory officer over the activities of every security or federal government agency.
However, Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the plaintiff’s application was incompetent under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
Justice Omotosho held that even if it was competent, “the reliefs sought are not grantable and thus, it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.”
