The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, last Wednesday, declined to legalise prostitution in the country, even as it dismissed a suit that sought to enforce fundamental rights of commercial sex workers in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.
The court, in a judgement that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, while describing prostitution as an immoral act that is alien to the cultural values of all the ethnic groups in the country, said it found no reason to stop the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike and security agencies, from arresting those that engage in such illicit business.
According to the court, prostitutes have no legal rights to enjoy under any known law or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
- Advertisement -
The judgement followed a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, which the sex workers filed to bar the FCT Minister and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board, AEPB, from harassing, intimidating, arresting and prosecuting them.
Aside from Wike and the AEPB, other respondents in the legal action initiated on behalf of Abuja-based prostitutes by a Nongovernmental Organization under the aegis of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protection of Rights of Children, Women and Indigent were the Federal Capital Territory Administration, FCTA, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF.
Through their team of lawyers led by Mr. Rommy Mom, the Applicants prayed the court to enforce their right to prostitution, in line with all the fundamental human rights that were inured to them from the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Specifically, the urged 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.
Also, under 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.
Upon the determination of the questions, the Applicants sought a declaration that a charge the AEPB entered 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 a violation of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
They sought a declaration that the duties of the board do not extend to the harassment, arrest and raid of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
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.
The applicants also prayed the court to restrain the AEPB, its agents or privies from harassing, arresting and raiding women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
Also, to make an order directing all the respondents to ensure the proper application of the provisions of the Abuja Environmental Protect Act, 1997, by the first respondent, AEPB.
However, in his judgement on Wednesday, Justice Omotosho held that under the criminal law also known as the Penal Code,commercial sex workers are liable to be arrested and prosecuted for a jail term of two years.
He held that their application was incompetent as it did not comply with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
It was also the court’s position that the reliefs were not grantable, even as it dismissed the case for want of merit.
“This court wonders what kind of message the Applicant was 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 like this,” Justice Omotosho added.
Continuing, the judge said: “The women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja or prostitutes or vagabonds are by their actions committing an offence and thus their fundamental rights can be legally breached by the its respondent.
“Holding a different opinion would mean that a person arrested in the process of robbing others can claim to be entitled to his fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom.
“This would cause anarchy and chaos In the society,” he said, adding assuming that prostitution is not an offense in the FCT, the rights of these prostitutes can legally be violated under Section 45 of the constitution, which allows the breach of a person’s right on the grounds of defence, public safety, public health, public order and public morality.
“It is a known fact that prostitutes are some of the clearest examples of indecency in society, and they are champions of immorality through their immoral dressing, exposing sensitive parts of their bodies, their use of vulgar language as well as the chief culprits in spreading sexual diseases.
“Allowing prostitutes to have free reign on the streets of Abuja will, in no time, destroy the moral fiber of the city and turn it into a hotbed of immorality.
“This court will not allow such to happen,” he said, adding that the court was not unaware that prostitution had been legalized 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, one of the Statutes enforced by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, is clear on what fundamental rights are in Africa.”
He held that, looking at the preamble to the charter, Africans’ culture must reflect 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, 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.
“I daresay that prostitution is alien 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.”
Justice Omotosho held that 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 a nuisance in the FCT and are clearly committing an offense 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,” the trial judge added.
