By Vivian Okejeme, Abuja
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, has dismissed a suit seeking the fundamental rights for commercial sex workers in the Federal Capital Territory FCT.
The plaintiffs were before the court seeking for an order to operate without intimidation from security agencies of the federal government.
In the judgement, the Judge held that the prostitutes have no legal rights to enjoy under any known law or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Justice Omotosho further held that the commercial sex workers were even liable to be arrested, prosecuted for a jail term of two years under the criminal law known as Penal Code.
A Non Governmental Organization, Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protection of Rights of Children, Women and Indigent had sued the Abuja Environmental Protection Board, FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
In the suit marked THC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, the sex workers had sought to stop the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from harrassing, intimidating, arresting and prosecuting them in Abuja.
They asked the Judge to enforce their fundamental human rights to prostitution as enshrined in the Nigerian law.
The suit filed on May 14, 2024, through a team of lawyers led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs and Victor Eboh, raised two questions for determination by the Judge.
It asked 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.
“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 does not extend to the harassment, arrest and raid of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They 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.
Never miss a moment! Get the stories shaping Nigeria, delivered straight to your phone. Follow Peoplesdaily Newspaper on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive reports, and the headlines everyone will be talking about, before anyone else.
