News
Judge Dismisses Suit Against Wike, AEPB, Labels Prostitutes as Vagabonds
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, dismissed 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.
Justice James Omotosho, in a judgement, held that the application of the plaintiff 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.”
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, FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
The originating summons was brought pursuant to Order 3, Rule 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, extends 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,’ is 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 proper application of the provisions of Abuja Environmental Protect Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent.
But in a counter affidavit jointly filed by the minister, AEPB and FCTA by 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 honourable court cannot rely on a judgment which 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 was violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to warrant 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 right cannot be enforced by another person who is not the victim of 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 the 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.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho formulated three issues for determination.
These included “whether the applicant can bring an action to enforce the rights of a group of persons, whether this fundamental rights suit is within the jurisdiction of this court in view of the claim of the applicant and whether the reliefs sought can be granted in the circumstances.”
The judge said the applicant, a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), which brought the suit to enforce the rights of women engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja, cannot be stopped from bringing the action as it was well within the law to do so.
“Consequently, issue one is resolved in favour of the applicant,” he ruled.
The judge said though the right to freedom from discrimination was claimed as the first relief, “the facts and circumstances before this court show that it is simply ancillary to the main claim as regards the provision of the Abuja Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
“The import of this is that the suit cannot be competently taken under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure.
“Consequently, this issue is resolved against the applicant.”
Citing Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the judge examined what constituted enforceable human rights in Nigeria.
He said the court was not unaware that prostitution had been legalised in some western nations, including in the Netherlands where prostitutes are now entitled to pensions and other benefits.
“This is not so in Africa. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights which is one of the Statutes enforced by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, is clear on what fundamental rights are in Africa.”
He said looking at the preamble to the charter, the culture of Africans must reflect in their idea of what constitutes human rights.
“This philosophy is what is known as cultural relativism in the framework of human rights.
“The counterpoint to this is universality which posits that human rights should be the same in all places and should apply to persons irrespective of their culture, religion, race, gender or other differences.
“The idea behind universalism is to ensure uniformity in human rights development. Universality of human rights directly led to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is the first global human rights document.
“While it is theoretically sound, universalism if applied would offend the unique cultures of some people.
“For instance, the right to same sex marriage which is acceptable in Western nations like the United Kingdom will be deeply unacceptable to conservative and religious nations like Arab nations.
“Thus cultural relativism means that these nations can choose which of these rights to adopt or not.
“This explains why some conservative nations exercise their right to reservation regarding several sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which are in conflict with their cultural beliefs.”
The judge said Nigeria is an African nation with deeply cultural norms that guide everyday conduct.
“I daresay that prostitution is 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 has taken some root in Nigeria still does not make it right.
“Even in some Western countries, prostitution is still seen as an immoral act.
“In the United States of America for instance, apart from a few counties in the state of Nevada, prostitution or sex work is illegal in the other 50 states of the US.
“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.
Justice Omotosho 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.
“| must also say here that this court is bemused by this instant application filed by the applicant which is apparently a Civil Society Organisation set up to protect the rights of girls and women.
“This court wonders what kind of message the applicant is 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
Justice Omotosho also further held that the judgment of a sister court in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/971/2019, exhibited by the group was only of slight persuasive authority.
The judge said he was not bound by the decision of the brother judge being court of coordinate jurisdiction, citing a Court of Appeal’s previous case to back his decision.
International News
Transfer: Real Madrid , Cucurella Reach Verbal Agreement
Chelsea reliable defender, Marc Cucurella may join Spanish giant, Real Madrid before the end of the current transfer window.if information from transfer journalist, Fabrizio Romano are anything to go by.
Romano In a latest transfer update, said Real Madrid has reached verbal agreement to sign Marc Cucurella from Chelsea.
“Verbal agreement in place between all parties, player too — he’s the left back wanted by Mourinho” the update read.
News
Hakimi, Vinicius Barred From Speaking Spanish At World Cup
FIFA has come under scrutiny after several high-profile players, including Achraf Hakimi and Vinicius Junior, were discouraged from speaking Spanish during media engagements at the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States.
The issue first surfaced ahead of Morocco’s Group C clash with Brazil when a Spanish-speaking journalist attempted to question Morocco captain Achraf Hakimi in Spanish.
Despite Hakimi, who grew up in Madrid and speaks the language fluently, indicating he was comfortable answering in Spanish, event officials reportedly insisted that questions be asked in English.
Hakimi attempted to reassure organizers that language would not be a barrier, but officials maintained that no Spanish translator was available for the session. A compromise was eventually reached, with the reporter asking the question in Spanish while Hakimi responded in English.
The controversy intensified during Brazil’s media session when Vinicius Junior was also interrupted while responding to a question in Spanish.
The Real Madrid forward, who is more comfortable speaking Portuguese or Spanish than English, was reportedly asked by organizers to switch languages.
Rather than continue in Spanish, Vinicius opted to answer in Portuguese before turning his attention back to Brazil’s World Cup preparations.
The incidents sparked widespread debate among journalists and fans, many of whom questioned why Spanish—a language spoken by millions across North America—was effectively restricted at a tournament being hosted largely in the United States.
According to Spanish media outlet El País, FIFA only provides Spanish-language translation services at World Cup press conferences involving Spanish-speaking nations such as Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, and Paraguay.
For all other teams, questions and answers are expected to be conducted either in English or the official language of the participating country.
The policy has generated criticism online, with many supporters arguing that multilingual communication should be encouraged at a global event like the World Cup.
The backlash was particularly strong in Vinicius’ case, as the Brazilian forward appeared visibly uncomfortable being asked to communicate in English.
The controversy overshadowed what was otherwise a highly anticipated encounter between Brazil and Morocco, which ended in a 1-1 draw.
With the issue now drawing international attention, FIFA may face increasing calls to review its media language guidelines as the tournament progresses.
News
It’s Illegal’…Falana’s Bombshell Indicts Govs, FG.
Human rights advocate, Femi Falana, has warned federal and state governments against negotiating with and rewarding terrorists.
According to Falana, the practice is illegal.
He stated this while delivering the keynote address at the Amnesty International Second Annual General Meeting in Abuja on June 13, 2026.
Falana claimed it is public knowledge officials of the Federal Government and some State Governments have been holding meetings and negotiating with terrorists and bandits, which has led to thousands of ‘repentant’ criminals being forgiven and given cash gifts of undisclosed sums of money.
Asserting that the “satanic Boko Haram sect and similar bodies have been proscribed” under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, Falana insisted that “their members and allies shall be prosecuted and not pampered and forgiven by the Nigerian State.”
Highlighting the legal consequences, he quoted Section 22 of the Act, stating: “A person who knowingly—(a) arranges, manages, assists in arranging or managing, participates in a meeting or an activity, which in his knowledge is concerned or connected with an act of terrorism or terrorist group, (b) collects, or provides logistics, equipment, information, articles or facilities for a meeting or an activity, which in his knowledge is concerned or connected with an act of terrorism or terrorist group, or (c) attends a meeting, which in his knowledge is to support a proscribed entity or to further the objectives of a proscribed entity, commits an offence, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of at least 20 years.”
-
Health & Wellness10 months agoPresident Tinubu Directs Cut in Dialysis Cost from ₦50,000 to ₦12,000
-
News10 months agoPICTURE: In Lagos Couple Sentenced to 22½ Years for Cannabis Trafficking
-
Business3 months agoDangote Refinery Reduces Petrol Gantry Price To ₦1,200 Per Litre
-
Trending News10 months agoNELFUND Disburses ₦86bn To 449,000 Beneficiaries
-
International News2 months agoIndian Police Arrest Nigerian Over ₦290m Drug Haul
-
Business3 months agoAfter Plea Bargain, Court Discharges Stella Oduah of ₦2.5bn Fraud
-
Business2 years agoHeritage Bank Customers’ Path to Securing ₦5m Insured Funds: A Step-By-Step Guide by NDIC”
-
Business2 years ago
Dangote; We Did Not Fix ₦600/Litre Petrol Price
