With the recent reporting of the decision of Lagos State High Court in sult IP/300M /2006 between Olalekan Akintola V I.G. P& ors (Unreported Lagos High Court Suit) where the limits of the Constitutional right is personal liberty were judicially defined by Justice B.O Shitta-Bey (Mrs) the Squib has shown once again that is a serious law magazine contrary to the impression in some quarters that it is no more a judicial gossip tabloid set by its proprietorship to profit from the goofs and gaffes of judicial officers and workers’
The relevant facts of this uncelebrated decision which nonetheless has great constitutional import, is that one Mr. Olalekan Akintola who defied the Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Law 2000 by being found in a public place on Saturday the 24th April 2004 at New Carrage Ifako Gbagada between the hours of 7:00am to 10.00am when there was a restriction on public movement in the observation of the monthly Environmental Sanitation exercise, was arrested and detained at the Ifako Gbagada Police Station, Gbagada pursuant to the said Law. He therefore subsequently filed an act under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules challenging amongst other things.
1. The Constitutionality of the said Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Law.
2. The constitutionality and legality of his arrest and detention under the said Law.
3. N10 million for his arrest and detention under the said law.
In the aforesaid judgement, Justice B.O Shitta-Bey (Mrs) upheld the constitutionality of the said Law under Section 45(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as being a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (a). In the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health”
His lordship having upheld that the detention of the Applicant was not wrongful or illegal and thus his claim for N10 million was dismissed as being unmeritorious. In essence the court held that the Environmental Sanitation Law of Lagos State 2000 restricting the right of citizen on the last Saturday of every month is Constitutional and that the police under relevant authority will be acting within the law in arresting and prosecuting a citizen who defies the law.
The exact limitations of fundamental right particularly the right to liberty has agitated jurists for several years with lawyers sharply divided over the issue.
Radical lawyers particularly those with civil liberty bent tend to believe that the exercise of these rights is almost absolute excepting those involved in patently criminal activities. In support of these liberal view the 2nd Republic cases of Fed. MM of Int. Affairs V Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR Oyegbemi V A.G (1982) 3 NCLR 895
Adikwu V. F.H.R (1982) 3 NCLR 395 are readily cited that the citizen is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental rights, which rights are not only Constitutional but in fact inalienable and enjoy global imprimatur by virtue of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. The celebrated cases of Agbakoba V SSS (1998) 1HRLR A 257 is part of this advocacy.
The meaning here is that Constitutional rights ought to be interpreted liberally as stated in Rabiu V State (1980) 8-11S.C 130 C 148-149.
The other school of thought made up of conservative but none the less brilliant lawyers who in fact consider themselves not only realistic but objective. This argue that no right be it ordinary or inalienable is absolute; that it will be absurd to hold that the enjoyment of any right is absolute as human beings have a tendency to abuse rights that are not in one way or the other curtailed. In fact such a situation will merely breed chaos and anarchy. They argue that it is proper to let such citizen know that his rights stop where the other citizen’s right begins. Sic uteres tuout alienum non laedus. Your right to stretch your hands ends where my nose begins. And in the case of society there times in the interest of security, law and order and public health that a citizen’s right has to be subjected to the rights of the greater majority of other citizens, hence reasonable curtailment of the individual citizen’s rights.
Thus this group fined realistic succour in Section 45 (1) of the Constitution that allows the State to make reasonable laws to check the excessive enjoyment of fundamental human rights.
Recent developments in the nation’s jurisprudence will tend to support the caution urged by this group in relation to fundamental human rights.
In the case of Dokubo-Asari V FRN (2007) 5-6 SC 150, where the Applicant applied for bail in the exercise of his Constitutional right to liberty in denying him bail the court held that his activities which were a threat to the peace and security and therefore his personal right to liberty has to b subjected to the nation to live in peace. Thus the court declined him the exercise of his fundamental human rights including the right to personal liberty stating such a right is not absolute and can be curtailed in some instances.
Still on the limitation of human rights, the case of Dr. Lewis Chuhkwuma V C.O.P (2005) 8 NWLR (pt 927)278 where the public order Act that limit a citizen’s right to freedom of Association and Freedom of expression by subjecting public gatherings to police permits was held to be Constitutional is also routinely cited.
Both schools of thought have valid argument but it humbly submitted that in the content of the instant case, the decision of the Hon. B.O Shitta-Bey in the instant case is in order Lagos State like many other Nigerian States and cities are groaning under the weight of filth and waste.
Indeed, Lagos was at the very top of the dubious pack, but in recent times by taking drastic measures, the city is fast becoming the garden city of Lagos by the strong determination of the Governor Babatunde Fashola to make the city comparable to any of the best in the World such as New York, London, Tokyo, Paris etc in term of clean environment and aesthetics. The monthly environmental sanitation which requires every Lagosian to stay indoors between 7.00a.m – 10.00a.m to clean up their environment is just one of the cocktails of initiatives to give Lagos a clean and healthy appearance and environment. If the price which every citizen is to pay is to stay indoors to clean up his environment for a few hours once every month to ensure a clean and healthy environment is with due respect, greater that the right of every individual to personal liberty which has shown above is not an absolute right.
Thus it is submitted that the decision of The Hon. Justice B.O Shitta-Bey (Ms) in suit IP/308M/2006 between Olalekan Akintola V I.G.P & Ors correctly demilits of a citizen’s Constitution
The relevant facts of this uncelebrated decision which nonetheless has great constitutional import, is that one Mr. Olalekan Akintola who defied the Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Law 2000 by being found in a public place on Saturday the 24th April 2004 at New Carrage Ifako Gbagada between the hours of 7:00am to 10.00am when there was a restriction on public movement in the observation of the monthly Environmental Sanitation exercise, was arrested and detained at the Ifako Gbagada Police Station, Gbagada pursuant to the said Law. He therefore subsequently filed an act under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules challenging amongst other things.
1. The Constitutionality of the said Lagos State Environmental Sanitation Law.
2. The constitutionality and legality of his arrest and detention under the said Law.
3. N10 million for his arrest and detention under the said law.
In the aforesaid judgement, Justice B.O Shitta-Bey (Mrs) upheld the constitutionality of the said Law under Section 45(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as being a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (a). In the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health”
His lordship having upheld that the detention of the Applicant was not wrongful or illegal and thus his claim for N10 million was dismissed as being unmeritorious. In essence the court held that the Environmental Sanitation Law of Lagos State 2000 restricting the right of citizen on the last Saturday of every month is Constitutional and that the police under relevant authority will be acting within the law in arresting and prosecuting a citizen who defies the law.
The exact limitations of fundamental right particularly the right to liberty has agitated jurists for several years with lawyers sharply divided over the issue.
Radical lawyers particularly those with civil liberty bent tend to believe that the exercise of these rights is almost absolute excepting those involved in patently criminal activities. In support of these liberal view the 2nd Republic cases of Fed. MM of Int. Affairs V Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR Oyegbemi V A.G (1982) 3 NCLR 895
Adikwu V. F.H.R (1982) 3 NCLR 395 are readily cited that the citizen is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental rights, which rights are not only Constitutional but in fact inalienable and enjoy global imprimatur by virtue of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. The celebrated cases of Agbakoba V SSS (1998) 1HRLR A 257 is part of this advocacy.
The meaning here is that Constitutional rights ought to be interpreted liberally as stated in Rabiu V State (1980) 8-11S.C 130 C 148-149.
The other school of thought made up of conservative but none the less brilliant lawyers who in fact consider themselves not only realistic but objective. This argue that no right be it ordinary or inalienable is absolute; that it will be absurd to hold that the enjoyment of any right is absolute as human beings have a tendency to abuse rights that are not in one way or the other curtailed. In fact such a situation will merely breed chaos and anarchy. They argue that it is proper to let such citizen know that his rights stop where the other citizen’s right begins. Sic uteres tuout alienum non laedus. Your right to stretch your hands ends where my nose begins. And in the case of society there times in the interest of security, law and order and public health that a citizen’s right has to be subjected to the rights of the greater majority of other citizens, hence reasonable curtailment of the individual citizen’s rights.
Thus this group fined realistic succour in Section 45 (1) of the Constitution that allows the State to make reasonable laws to check the excessive enjoyment of fundamental human rights.
Recent developments in the nation’s jurisprudence will tend to support the caution urged by this group in relation to fundamental human rights.
In the case of Dokubo-Asari V FRN (2007) 5-6 SC 150, where the Applicant applied for bail in the exercise of his Constitutional right to liberty in denying him bail the court held that his activities which were a threat to the peace and security and therefore his personal right to liberty has to b subjected to the nation to live in peace. Thus the court declined him the exercise of his fundamental human rights including the right to personal liberty stating such a right is not absolute and can be curtailed in some instances.
Still on the limitation of human rights, the case of Dr. Lewis Chuhkwuma V C.O.P (2005) 8 NWLR (pt 927)278 where the public order Act that limit a citizen’s right to freedom of Association and Freedom of expression by subjecting public gatherings to police permits was held to be Constitutional is also routinely cited.
Both schools of thought have valid argument but it humbly submitted that in the content of the instant case, the decision of the Hon. B.O Shitta-Bey in the instant case is in order Lagos State like many other Nigerian States and cities are groaning under the weight of filth and waste.
Indeed, Lagos was at the very top of the dubious pack, but in recent times by taking drastic measures, the city is fast becoming the garden city of Lagos by the strong determination of the Governor Babatunde Fashola to make the city comparable to any of the best in the World such as New York, London, Tokyo, Paris etc in term of clean environment and aesthetics. The monthly environmental sanitation which requires every Lagosian to stay indoors between 7.00a.m – 10.00a.m to clean up their environment is just one of the cocktails of initiatives to give Lagos a clean and healthy appearance and environment. If the price which every citizen is to pay is to stay indoors to clean up his environment for a few hours once every month to ensure a clean and healthy environment is with due respect, greater that the right of every individual to personal liberty which has shown above is not an absolute right.
Thus it is submitted that the decision of The Hon. Justice B.O Shitta-Bey (Ms) in suit IP/308M/2006 between Olalekan Akintola V I.G.P & Ors correctly demilits of a citizen’s Constitution
No comments:
Post a Comment