The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled March 12 for judgment in a suit seeking to stop Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting commercial sex workers (CSWs) in the city.
Justice James Omotosho set the date after both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ legal teams presented their arguments in the case.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the plaintiff, represented by the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women, and the Indigent, filed the suit.
The group has named the AEPB, FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 1st to 4th respondents.
The suit, filed on May 14, 2024, by a legal team led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs, and Victor Eboh, raised two key questions.
The plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether the AEPB’s duties under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, include the harassment, arrest, detention, and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work in Abuja.
Another question raised was whether Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, can be used to categorize women or their bodies as goods for purchase.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the charges made by AEPB personnel in the FCT Mobile Court, which referred to arrested women as “articles” and considered their bodies as “goods for purchase,” is discriminatory and violates Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
They are also asking for a ruling that the AEPB’s duties do not extend to the harassment, arrest, and prosecution of women suspected of sex work in Abuja.
In addition, they are requesting that the court declare that neither Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, nor any other laws authorize the board to arrest women for suspected sex work.
They further seek a declaration that Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, does not treat women as “articles” or their bodies as “goods for purchase.”
The plaintiffs are requesting an order restraining the AEPB, its agents, or associates from harassing, arresting, or prosecuting women suspected of sex work in Abuja.
They also seek an order directing all respondents to ensure the proper application of the AEPB Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent.
Ayomide Joshua, a project assistant with R.A. Mom and Associates, stated in an affidavit that the applicant is a non-partisan and non-profit human rights organization.
She mentioned that the organization provides free legal services to vulnerable women in Nigeria and has assisted over 200 women in Abuja who faced harassment, arrest, and prosecution by the AEPB.
Joshua highlighted that in 2019, the group assisted more than 30 women who had been victims of alleged violations by the AEPB and the Nigeria Police Force.
The affidavit included a copy of a judgment in one of the cases filed on behalf of victims of the AEPB, marked as Exhibit A.
The project assistant emphasized that these women were suspected of engaging in sex work, which led to their arrest, harassment, and prosecution by the AEPB under Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.
Joshua further stated that this issue has gained national and international attention, with organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Open Society Fund being involved, alongside over 30 local organizations.
She argued that while women are prosecuted under Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, the section states that “any person who sells, displays, offers, or carries for sale any goods or articles of trade at a road junction or any other unauthorized place is guilty of an offense.”
Joshua accused the AEPB of normalizing the use of the police and security agencies to arrest and prosecute women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja, despite the fact that these women often have no goods or wares with them at the time of arrest.
She further pointed out that women are frequently arrested while their male counterparts are let go, even if they are found in the same location.
Joshua claimed that AEPB frequently accuses these women of prostitution and selling their bodies, even though they are often arrested without having any goods for sale.
She also noted that the women are not allowed to contact relatives while in detention.
Joshua believes that a judgment in favor of the applicant will put an end to the harassment, intimidation, and arrest of vulnerable women in Abuja.
In a counter-affidavit filed by the minister, AEPB, and FCTA through their lawyer, Betty Umegbulem, the respondents denied the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Ahmed Gidado, a legal assistant who deposed to the counter-affidavit, argued that the applicant did not file any case in 2019.
He also stated that the judgment attached by the applicant was not relevant to the case, as it was from a different individual, Ms. Mirabel Ojimba, and not the applicant.
Gidado further argued that the court could not rely on an incomplete and unsigned judgment. He also claimed that the applicant had no direct evidence of harassment or arrest by the AEPB.
According to Gidado, the police have the legal authority to arrest individuals suspected of committing an offense and to bring them before a court for trial.
He argued that the applicant had not shown how their fundamental human rights had been violated.
In a similar vein, the AGF, through Barnabas Onoja, a litigation officer, denied the allegations made by the applicant.
He stated that the AGF had never received a pre-action notice from the applicant and that the AGF’s office only became aware of the case after receiving the legal processes.
Onoja further argued that the AGF does not have supervisory authority over the activities of federal agencies like the AEPB and the FCTA.