A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, has criticised the enforcement of movement restrictions during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise in Lagos, describing the policy as unlawful and inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
In a statement released on Saturday, Adegboruwa accused the Lagos State Government of compelling residents to remain indoors without a valid legal framework, arguing that such directives infringe on citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of movement.
He said the April 25 sanitation exercise saw authorities deploy enforcement teams, including security operatives, officials of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA), and other personnel, to ensure compliance, alleging that residents were harassed and intimidated in the process.
The senior lawyer maintained that there is no existing law in Lagos State that authorises the restriction of movement for sanitation purposes, challenging the government to publicly present any legislation backing the directive.
He also questioned the state’s reference to a 2017 health law, noting that the legislation has not been made available for public scrutiny.
“There is currently no law in force that permits the government to restrict movement for environmental sanitation,” he said, insisting that any such enforcement lacks legal validity.
Beyond the legal argument, Adegboruwa described the policy as outdated and unsuitable for a modern urban centre, arguing that Lagos, as a major commercial hub, should adopt more progressive approaches to environmental management.
He said effective sanitation should be driven by efficient waste management systems, public awareness, and sustainable infrastructure rather than compulsory lockdowns.
Adegboruwa further criticised what he described as contradictions in governance, pointing to challenges in waste evacuation, water supply and public services as issues that should take priority over restrictive measures.
He warned that enforcing sanitation through coercion undermines democratic governance and could erode public trust.
According to him, no resident should be penalised for disregarding what he termed an unconstitutional directive.