A constitutional storm is brewing in Edo State following the enforcement of a controversial sanitation lockdown, which restricted movement across the state on Saturday morning, with widespread reports of violence and rights violations.

The restriction, which barred movement between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., was enforced by the state’s sanitation task force, prompting sharp criticism from legal experts, civil society organisations, and opposition figures. Critics argue that the exercise not only lacks legal grounding but also defies existing court rulings, raising serious questions about the rule of law under Governor Monday Okpebholo’s administration.

At the heart of the uproar lies the constitutional validity of movement restrictions during monthly environmental sanitation. In *Okafor v. Lagos State* (2016), the Court of Appeal ruled that such restrictions violate Nigerians’ fundamental right to freedom of movement, emphasising that administrative orders cannot override constitutional provisions.

However, a conflicting judicial interpretation emerged in 2023, when the Court of Appeal reversed an earlier Federal High Court decision that had declared similar restrictions in Lagos unconstitutional. That appellate ruling allowed limited movement restrictions during sanitation under certain conditions—but only where enabling laws exist. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.

Legal analysts argue that Edo State’s situation differs fundamentally, as there is no legislation passed by the State House of Assembly authorising such restrictions.

“The Court of Appeal decision applied to Lagos, which has a law backing the restrictions,” said a Benin-based constitutional lawyer. “In Edo, no such law exists. What we have is executive action unsupported by legislation.”

Despite the mounting criticism, the state government has defended its decision. In a statement, the governor’s press secretary, Fred Itua, argued that environmental threats demanded urgent executive intervention.

“We cannot wait for legislation before taking action to protect our environment. That would be too slow,” the statement read.

The comment has sparked further criticism from lawyers and politicians alike. Former lawmaker Hon. Destiny Enabulele cautioned against bypassing constitutional processes in the name of expediency. “Even good intentions must operate within legal boundaries,” he said.

The sanitation controversy comes amid growing scrutiny of the governor’s approach to governance. In December 2024, Okpebholo orchestrated the suspension of all elected local government chairmen in Edo through the State House of Assembly, despite a 2023 Supreme Court ruling prohibiting such executive interference.

Following the suspensions, Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), issued a legal advisory deeming the move unconstitutional. A Federal High Court later ordered the reinstatement of the chairmen, but the Edo State Government has so far failed to comply.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has accused the governor of a “judicial assault,” citing a pattern of disobedience to valid court orders and undermining of constitutional rights.

Civil society groups have also waded in, condemning what they describe as excessive force by sanitation officers. “This is no longer about sanitation. It’s about the erosion of lawful governance,” said the director of a Benin-based human rights group. “When a pregnant woman is assaulted for stepping outside her home, we must ask what kind of state we are building.”

With calls growing for federal institutions to intervene, legal analysts warn that failure to address the constitutional concerns in Edo could embolden other states to similarly flout judicial authority.

As public anger swells and the legal wrangling intensifies, Edo’s sanitation policy may soon become a landmark test case for constitutional governance and civil liberties in Nigeria.