Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Wednesday, dismissed a suit seeking fundamental rights for commercial sex workers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to operate without intimidation from security agencies.
In his judgment, 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 held further that the commercial sex workers were therefore liable to be arrested, prosecuted, for a jail term of two years under the criminal law known as Penal Code.
A non-governmental organisation, 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 in the case, respectively.
In the suit marked THC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, the sex workers had sought to stop the FCT minister, Nyesom Wike and AEPB from harassing, 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 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 do 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.
However, the judge in his verdicts said even if it was competent, “the reliefs sought are not grantable and thus, it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.”
Credit: Blueprint Newspaper