FCT sex workers lose fundamental rights suit to FG

A federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a suit seeking fundamental rights for commercial sex workers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to operate without intimidation from security agencies.

It held that the prostitutes have no legal rights to enjoy under any known law or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In a judgment delivered yesterday, Justice James Kolawole Omotoso ruled that the commercial sex workers were even liable to be arrested and prosecuted for a jail term of two years under the criminal law known as the Penal Code.

A Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), 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 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 harassing, intimidating, arresting and prosecuting them in the FCT.

They asked the judge to enforce their fundamental human rights to prostitution. 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, extend to the harassment, arrest, detention and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.

The plaintiffs demanded: “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 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 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, Justice Omotosho, in his verdict, held that the application of the plaintiff was incompetent under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.

The judge held that even if it was competent, “the reliefs sought are not grantable and thus, it is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.” He added: “This court wonders what kind of message the applicant is 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 such as this.”