The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to legalize prostitution in Nigeria’s capital, affirming that the practice is immoral and contrary to the country’s cultural values.
In a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho on Wednesday, the court ruled that prostitutes have no legal rights protected under any existing Nigerian law or the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Consequently, it upheld the authority of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and security agencies to arrest those engaged in prostitution.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/642/2024, was filed by a group of commercial sex workers in Abuja through the Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protection of Rights of Children, Women, and Indigent.
They sought a court order preventing the FCT Minister and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from harassing, arresting, and prosecuting them.
The suit also listed the Federal Capital Territory Administration and the Attorney-General of the Federation as respondents. Through their legal team, led by Rommy Mom, the plaintiffs argued that prostitution should be recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Key Arguments in the Case
The applicants sought the court’s interpretation of whether the AEPB’s mandate under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, extended to arresting women suspected of engaging in sex work.
They also challenged the legality of a charge filed before an FCT Mobile Court, which allegedly classified arrested prostitutes as “articles” or their bodies as “goods for purchase.”
Among other reliefs, they requested a declaration that the AEPB lacked the legal authority to arrest or raid women suspected of prostitution.
They also urged the court to prohibit further arrests and direct authorities to ensure the proper application of the Abuja Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
Court’s Ruling
Dismissing the case, Justice Omotosho ruled that prostitution remains a punishable offense under Nigeria’s criminal laws, with offenders liable to a two-year jail term.
He also faulted the applicants for failing to meet procedural requirements under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
The judge criticized the nature of the lawsuit, stating, “This court wonders what kind of message the Applicant was sending when it decided to bring an action to protect prostitutes.”
He further remarked, “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.”
Justice Omotosho likened the argument to a situation where a robber could claim the right to personal liberty after being caught in the act, warning that such a stance could lead to anarchy.
Citing Section 45 of the Constitution, the judge noted that fundamental rights can be lawfully restricted in the interest of public safety, health, morality, and order.
“It is a known fact that prostitutes are some of the clearest examples of indecency in society, and they are champions of immorality through their immoral dressing, exposing sensitive parts of their bodies, their use of vulgar language as well as the chief culprits in spreading sexual diseases,” he stated.
The judge argued that allowing prostitution to thrive in Abuja would erode moral values and transform the city into a hub of immorality. He acknowledged that some Western nations, such as the Netherlands, had legalized prostitution but maintained that African traditions and cultural values do not support such a practice.
Quoting the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, he emphasized that each society has the right to define human rights within its cultural framework.
He noted, “I daresay that prostitution is alien and has never been part of our culture. Prostitution or ‘Olosho’ and ‘Ashewo’ as the Yorubas call it, ‘Akwuna-Akwuna’ as the Igbos call it, ‘Karuwa’ as the Hausas call it or ‘Hookup’ as the young people say it, is alien to our culture.”
Justice Omotosho further pointed out that even in the United States, prostitution remains illegal in most states except a few counties in Nevada.
Declaring the applicants’ case baseless, he ruled that the AEPB was acting within its authority to arrest and prosecute prostitutes, labeling them as “vagabonds” and a “nuisance” to public order.
The court maintained, “I, therefore, hold that this application filed by the applicant has no basis and the rights claimed are unenforceable in light of the provisions of Section 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Preamble to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.”
