The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has fixed March 12 for judgment in a suit seeking to stop FCT Minister Nyesom Wike and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting commercial sex workers (CSWs).

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for the plaintiffs and the defence presented their arguments for and against the case.

The plaintiff, under the auspices of the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women and the Indigent, had instituted the suit.

The group sued the AEPB, FCT minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the first to fourth respondents, respectively.

The originating summons was brought pursuant to Order 3, Rule 6 and 9 of the FHC (Civil Procedure Rules, 2019; Sections 6(6)(b), 41(1), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The group sought two questions in the suit dated and filed on May 14, 2024, by a team of lawyers led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs and Victor Eboh.

The lawyers want 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.

“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 said.

The lawyers, therefore, sought a declaration that the charge made by the 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 regarded 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.

They sought an order restraining the first respondent, her agents or privies from prosecuting women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under section 35(1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.

They equally sought an order directing all the respondents to ensure proper application of the provisions of the Abuja Environmental Protect Act, 1997, by the first respondent.

A project assistant with R.A. Mom and Associates, Ayomide Joshua, in the affidavit she deposed to, said women were suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja, leading to their harassment, arrest and prosecution by AEPB under Section 35 (1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.

She said the cases are of national and international concerns, involving international organisations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Open Society Fund, and over 30 local organisations.

Ms Joshua said although the women were prosecuted relying on section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, which 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 unauthorised place is guilty of an offence.”

She alleged that AEPB had normalised the use of the police and other security agencies to arrest, harass and prosecute several women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under the section.

Ms Joshua said that the women who are arrested often do not have any goods for sale or wares on them.

She said AEPB, at the time of prosecuting these women, frequently accused them of prostitution and selling their bodies.

Ms Joshua said AEPB had maintained that it only arrests sex workers who are found standing on the streets of Abuja, waiting for their male clients.

“These women are often arrested alone, while the male counterparts are pardoned, despite being found in the same place at the same time,” she said.

According to her, the women are usually arrested with the assistance of the police and are not permitted to contact any relatives.

She said the determination of the case in favour of the applicant would put an end to the continuous harassment, intimidation and arrest of vulnerable women in Abuja by the board.

Ms Joshua said that a pre-action notice dated February 16, 2021, was served on AEPB before instituting the matter. She said it would be in the interest of justice to grant their reliefs.

But in a counter affidavit jointly filed by the minister, AEPB and FCTA by their lawyer, Betty Umegbulem, the respondents denied all the averments in the applicant’s affidavit.

Ahmed Gidado, a legal assistant who deposed to the counter affidavit, said the applicant did not file any case against the first to third respondents in 2019.

Mr Gidado argued that the exhibit attached therein was for a case filed by one Mirabel Ojimba and not the applicant.

He said the attached judgment copy was incomplete as the last pages were missing.

The lawyer said the applicant did not present any evidence to prove that any woman was harassed or arrested by the AEPB.

He said that contrary to the applicant’s argument, police officers are authorised, by law, to arrest any person they suspect to have committed an offence for the purpose of bringing him or her before a court of law for prosecution.

Mr Gidado said such a suspect can defend himself or raise any objection to their arrest at trial before a court.

He said all the information contained therein was hypothetical and speculative since the applicant was not the person arrested, and the deponent did not disclose the source of the information.

He argued that the applicant did not state how its fundamental human rights were violated and which of the rights was violated by the first to third respondents to warrant the filing of the action.

“The person (s) alleged to have been harassed, arrested or raided by the first to third respondents are not before the court to narrate their side of the story,” he added.

Mr Gidado, who argued that the applicant’s prayers were not in line with the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, said fundamental human rights cannot be enforced by another person who is not the victim of violation.

Also, the AGF, in his counter-affidavit deposed by Barnabas Onoja, a litigation officer, argued that all the facts presented by the applicant were untrue and misleading.

Mr Onoja said that contrary to the applicant’s submission, the AGF never received any pre-action notice from the applicant and that his office was only aware of the present suit upon receipt of the processes.

He said the AGF does not act as a supervisory officer over the activities of every security or federal government agency.

(NAN)