Tensions escalated across Edo State on Saturday following the enforcement of a sanitation lockdown that restricted residents’ movement from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., triggering widespread criticism and reports of rights violations, including the alleged assault of a pregnant woman in Benin City.
The state-wide restriction, implemented under the directive of the Governor Monday Okpebholo-led administration, has drawn sharp rebuke from lawyers, civil society groups, and opposition parties, who describe it as unconstitutional and a dangerous display of executive overreach.
Multiple video clips circulated online captured disturbing scenes of Edo State sanitation taskforce members chasing vendors, shutting down businesses, and, in one viral instance, allegedly assaulting a visibly pregnant woman. The footage has sparked outrage and renewed calls for an investigation into the conduct of state officials during sanitation exercises.
At the centre of the growing outrage is the legality of restricting movement during environmental sanitation exercises. Legal precedents have repeatedly questioned the constitutionality of such directives.
In Okafor v. Lagos State (2016), the Court of Appeal held that movement restrictions during monthly sanitation violate the constitutional right to freedom of movement. Justice Ugochukwu Ogakwu, who delivered the lead judgment, made clear that no administrative fiat can override constitutionally guaranteed rights.
However, the debate remains unsettled. In 2023, the Court of Appeal reversed a 2015 Federal High Court ruling that initially declared the restrictions unconstitutional in Lagos State. The appellate court upheld the legality of movement restrictions—but only under specific conditions backed by law. That case is currently awaiting a final verdict at the Supreme Court.
In Edo,lawyers note a critical distinction: the absence of an enabling law passed by the Edo State House of Assembly authorising movement restrictions.
“The Lagos case may be different because it is supported by existing legislation. Edo State has no such law, making the enforcement on Saturday a legal overreach,” a Benin-based constitutional lawyer told ThisDay.
Defending the lockdown, the Edo State Government, through Governor Okpebholo’s press secretary Fred Itua, justified the action on environmental grounds.
“We cannot wait for legislation before taking action to protect our environment. That would be too slow,” the statement read.
But critics argue that bypassing legal processes in the name of urgency undermines democratic norms.
“Even good intentions must operate within legal boundaries,” said former federal lawmaker Hon. Destiny Enabulele. “You cannot suspend constitutional rights simply because you think it’s necessary.”
Saturday’s lockdown marks the latest in a series of actions under Governor Okpebholo’s administration that legal observers say demonstrate consistent disregard for judicial authority.
In December 2024, the governor, with backing from the State House of Assembly, suspended all elected local government chairmen in Edo State. This move came despite a standing 2023 Supreme Court ruling declaring such suspensions unconstitutional.
The Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, later issued a legal advisory condemning the action. A Federal High Court ordered the reinstatement of the suspended officials—but the Edo government has yet to comply.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has since accused the Okpebholo-led administration of “judicial assault,” citing a pattern of disobedience to lawful court orders.
Civil society organisations and human rights advocates are demanding accountability.
“This is no longer about sanitation—it’s about governance through force and impunity,” said the executive director of a Benin-based NGO. “When a pregnant woman is assaulted for walking outside her home, something has gone terribly wrong.”
Legal commentators warn that unless judicial and federal institutions act decisively, Edo State’s actions could embolden other subnational governments to violate constitutional norms.
“The Supreme Court must resolve the legality of these restrictions urgently,” said an Abuja-based analyst. “We are seeing an erosion of constitutional order under the guise of executive discretion.”
Leave a Comment