The Federal High Court of Abuja, chaired by Judge James Kolawole Omotosho, dismissed a lawsuit aimed at enforcing the rights of commercial gender workers without the intimidation of security agents from the federal government of Nigeria.
The judge ruled that prostitutes have no right to legal rights under any known law or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In a sentence made on Wednesday, Judge Omotosho said there was even a responsibility to be arrested, prosecuted and jailed for two years under the criminal law known as the “criminal law.”
A non-governmental organization, lawyers warn of rights protection for children, women and poor human rights initiatives that have sued the Abuja Environmental Protection Commission, the FCT Minister, the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Federal Attorney General (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
In a lawsuit marked THC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, sex workers attempted to prevent FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and the Abuja Environmental Protection Commission (AEPB) from harassing, intimidating, intimidating, arresting and prosecuting them in Abuja.
They asked the judges to enforce their basic human rights, prostitution as set out in Nigerian law.
The lawsuit filed on May 14, 2024 through a team of lawyers led by Lomi Mom, Bamidel Jacobs and Victor Eboh, posed two questions to determine the judge’s determination.
It requires the court to determine whether Article 6 of the AEPB Act 1997 extends to harassment, arrest, detention, detention and prosecution of women suspected of sexual work on the streets of Abuja.
“Did the provisions of section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act 1997, that a woman can be considered an article, or her body is considered a purchase of goods?” the judge also requested confirmation.
Therefore, attorneys demanded that AEPB personnel declared accusation of arresting women suspected of having sex as “items” in FCT Mobile Court and deeming their bodies as “purchased goods” was discriminatory and violated Article 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
Their demands that the board of directors have not extended to harassment, arrests and raids by women suspected of sexual work on the streets of Abuja.
They also demand that article 6 of the AEPB Act of 1997, or any existing law in the country, authorizes the arrest of women suspected of sexual work on the streets of Abuja.
They further requested the announcement that Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act 1997 does not refer to women as “items” or their bodies as “purchased goods.”
Therefore, lawyers prayed to the court to restrict the AEPB, its agents or private orders, from harassment, arrest and raid of women suspected of having sex on the streets of Abuja.
They seek orders to restrict the first respondent, her agent or private person, from prosecuting women suspected of having sex on Abuja streets under section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act of 1997.
They also sought orders directed by all respondents to ensure that the first defendants ensured the provisions of the Abuja Environmental Protection Act of 1997.
However, Judge Omotosho held in his judgment that the plaintiff’s application was incompetent under the 2009 Basic Rights (Enforcement Procedures) Rules.
The judge held that even if it had the capacity, “the relief sought was not granted and, therefore, was dismissed for lack of merit.”
“The court wants to know what kind of information the applicant is sending when he decides to take action to protect the prostitute.
“A reasonable person would expect the applicant to occupy himself by raising girls and protecting the sanctity of women rather than promoting the spread of immoral behavior and sexual diseases.
The judge ruled: “It is indeed shameful that the applicant should file such a lawsuit.”
Justice Omotosho also believes that the judgment of the sister courts on display in the lawsuit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/971/2019, has only a slight persuasive authority.
The judge said he was not subject to the decision of the brother judge to coordinate the decision of the court of jurisdiction and supported his decision in the previous case of the Court of Appeal.
Judge Omotosho also cites Articles 405(2)(D) and Articles 407 of the Act, saying: “The import of the above provisions is prostitution and constitutes a crime in the Criminal Law.”
According to him, it must be pointed out here that the basic human rights in Nigeria do not absolutely function. “There are some circumstances that require the law to violate certain rights.
“A common example is the arrest of a person suspected of committing a crime under Article 35(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (Amendment).
Omotosho cited a case previously ruled by the Supreme Court to make it clear from the above authorities that suspected crimes are the legal basis for violating human rights.
“Women or prostitutes or homeless people suspected of having sex on Abuja Street are committed by criminal action, so the IST defendant can lawfully violate their fundamental rights.
“Having a different opinion would mean that a person arrested during the robbery of another person can claim to be entitled to his fundamental right to personal freedom and freedom.
He added: “This will lead to anarchy and chaos in society.” Assuming prostitution is not a crime of the FCT, it is possible to legally violate the rights of these prostitutes under Article 45 of the Constitution, which allows for the violation of human rights on grounds of national defense, public safety, public health, public health, public order and public morality.
“Prostitutes are known to be the clearest example of social indecent behavior. They expose sensitive parts of the body through immoral dressings, use vulgar language and the main culprit of spreading diseases, and are advocates of immorality.
“Allowing prostitutes to rule freely on the streets of Abuja will soon destroy the city’s moral fibers and turn them into a breeding ground for immorality.
“The court will not allow this,” he added. The court was not aware that prostitution was legalized in some Western countries, including in the Netherlands, which is now entitled to pensions and other benefits.
“This is not the case in Africa. The charter of human and people’s rights in Africa is one of the regulations on the implementation of the rules of fundamental rights (law enforcement procedures) which clearly demonstrates the fundamental rights in Africa.”
He said that looking at the preamble to the Charter, African culture must reflect the ideas that constitute human rights.
“This philosophy is what is called cultural relativism in the human rights framework. In contrast, the generalization believes that human rights should be the same everywhere and should apply to human culture, religion, race, gender or other differences.
“The idea behind universalism is to ensure unity in the development of human rights. The universality of human rights directly leads to the drafting of the Declaration of Human Rights, the first global human rights document.
“While it is reasonable in theory, universalism, if applied, will offend the unique culture of some people.
“For example, the right to same-sex marriage that is acceptable in Western countries like the UK will be unacceptable to conservative and religious countries, such as Arab countries.
Therefore, cultural relativism means that these countries can choose any right to adopt or not to adopt.
“This explains why some conservative countries exercise their right to reserve for several parts of the universal human rights declaration that contradicts their cultural beliefs.”
The judge said Nigeria is an African country with deep cultural norms that can guide daily behavior.
“I dare say that prostitution is strange and never became a part of our culture. Prostitution or “Olosho” and “Ashewo” As Yorubas says, “Akwuna-akwuna” as Igbos calls it, as Hausas says, “Karuwa” or “‘Karuwa” as young people say with our cultural aristocrats.
“It is considered a deeply immoral act that deserves shame. The fact that civilization and westernization still take root in Nigeria does not make it the right fact.
“Even in some Western countries, prostitution is still considered immoral.
“For example, in the United States, in 50 other states in the United States, prostitution or sex work is illegal.
“In the context of our cultural norms and traditions, there is absolutely no reason for prostitution in Nigeria, and in fact prostitution is a disgust in Africa,” he said.
Justice Omotosho believes that the organization attempts to protect the prostitutes of the “wanderers” and the AEPB as the right to arrest and prosecute them when it constitutes a nuisance of the FCT and apparently constitutes a crime by treating themselves as “female of virtuousness.”
He announced.
