Ending the Unconstitutional Lockdown: Why Nigeria Must Rethink Movement Restrictions on Environmental Sanitation Day
By Ik Ogbonna, PhD
This morning, something happened to me on MCC Road in Owerri that got me thinking.
I was on my way to visit a friend when I was stopped because it was Environmental Sanitation Day. For a few minutes, I found myself asking a question that many Nigerians have probably asked at one time or another:
Why must I be stopped from moving simply because today is sanitation day?
I understand the reason for environmental sanitation. I really do.
We all want clean streets, unclogged drains, healthier neighbourhoods and cities we can be proud of. Nobody should need to be forced to understand the importance of keeping the environment clean.
But somewhere along the line, we seem to have accepted an idea that deserves another look: that the easiest way to clean our environment is to keep people indoors.
Every last Saturday of the month, this familiar scene plays out in several parts of Nigeria. Roads become unusually quiet. Markets close temporarily. Vehicles are stopped. Security personnel and environmental officials take over major roads. People going somewhere are turned back.
For some people, it lasts only a few hours.
For others, those few hours matter.
Someone may be trying to get to the hospital. Someone else may have a flight to catch. A trader may be trying to make a day’s income. A student may have an important engagement. A family may be travelling. A worker may be late for an appointment.
And then there are those who simply want to exercise their right to move around their own city.
Should all of these people be stopped because it is the last Saturday of the month?
That is where the conversation becomes bigger than sanitation.
A Clean Environment and a Free Society
Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees citizens the right to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part of the country.
Of course, constitutional rights are not absolute. Section 45 recognises circumstances in which certain rights may lawfully be restricted in the interests of public safety, public order or public health, subject to the requirements of the Constitution.
So the question is not whether government has an interest in keeping the environment clean.
It clearly does.
The more important question is whether restricting the movement of citizens is necessary, lawful and proportionate to achieving that objective.
And that is a question our courts have wrestled with.
The Courts Have Not Spoken With One Voice
Lagos provides an interesting example.
In 2015, the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled against the state’s practice of restricting movement during monthly environmental sanitation.
The issue later came before the Court of Appeal.
In 2016, in Faith Okafor v. Lagos State Government & Anor, the Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of a written law authorising the restriction, the directive requiring residents to remain indoors during the sanitation period was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court also found that the applicant’s arrest and detention violated her fundamental rights.
That was a significant statement about the importance of constitutional liberty.
But the story did not end there.
In 2021, in the Adegboruwa litigation, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion and upheld the legality of Lagos State’s environmental sanitation exercise. Adegboruwa appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving the issue subject to further judicial consideration.
That history is important.
It means we cannot honestly say that Nigerian courts have reached one unanimous conclusion on environmental sanitation and freedom of movement.
The judicial position has evolved, and different courts have considered different facts, laws and circumstances.
What Happened in Anambra?
Anambra tells a similar story.
The State High Court initially declared the restriction unconstitutional. But the matter went on appeal in Anambra State Government & Ors v. Asiegbu.
The Court of Appeal took a more nuanced position.
It found that the restriction imposed on the applicant infringed his right to freedom of movement and upheld compensation awarded to him. But it also set aside the blanket injunction that would have prevented the government from conducting the sanitation exercise altogether.
In simple terms, the court recognised that the way government enforces sanitation matters.
Having a clean environment is one thing.
Stopping and restricting a citizen unlawfully is another.
Then Came Edo
More recently, the issue came before the Edo State High Court.
On 26 March 2026, the court held that the restriction of human and vehicular movement during the state’s environmental sanitation exercise violated the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
The court also relied on protections contained in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Edo State Government and its agents from restricting movement on account of environmental sanitation.
So the debate is far from over.
And perhaps it is a debate Nigeria needs to have more openly.
Do We Really Need to Lock Down Our Cities to Clean Them?
This is the part that bothers me most.
We have become so accustomed to the monthly sanitation routine that we rarely stop to ask whether there are better ways of achieving the same objective.
Do we really need to stop thousands of people from moving for three hours to keep our cities clean?
What if, instead, we built a system where waste is collected regularly?
What if drainage channels were cleared before they became blocked?
What if people who dump refuse indiscriminately were consistently sanctioned?
What if environmental agencies had the resources and personnel to do their jobs every day rather than waiting for the last Saturday of the month?
What if sanitation became a daily habit rather than a monthly event?
These questions deserve attention.
Many Nigerians already keep their homes and surroundings clean without waiting for government officials to appear with roadblocks.
The same culture can be encouraged at the community level.
The Poor Feel the Impact Most
There is another dimension we should not ignore.
For a professional on a fixed salary, losing two hours may be an inconvenience.
For a petty trader, artisan, commercial driver or daily-paid worker, those two hours can mean lost income.
A woman selling food by the roadside may need those early morning hours to make enough money to feed her family.
A commercial driver may lose several trips.
A mechanic or artisan may have customers waiting.
A young person rushing to an interview may not have the luxury of explaining that it is sanitation day.
When government policies affect people’s livelihoods, we must consider their human consequences, not just their administrative convenience.
And Then There Is the Problem of Enforcement
Anyone who has experienced these roadblocks knows that enforcement can sometimes be unpredictable.
One person is stopped.
Another is waved through.
Someone is threatened with arrest.
Someone else is allowed to continue after a phone call.
That creates another problem: selective enforcement.
A law or government policy should not become more restrictive simply because the person standing before the official is an ordinary citizen.
If movement restrictions are considered necessary, they should be backed by clear law, clearly communicated and applied fairly.
What happens when we become so accustomed to restrictions that we stop questioning them?
What happens when an extraordinary measure becomes routine?
What happens when citizens begin to accept that, once a government announces something, they simply have to obey even when fundamental rights may be involved?
A democracy should encourage citizens to ask questions.
That is not disrespect for government.
It is part of citizenship.
We Can Do Better
I am not suggesting that Environmental Sanitation Day should disappear.
Far from it.
I believe Nigerians need a stronger culture of environmental responsibility.
But perhaps we need to change the way we pursue it.
Let government provide efficient waste collection.
Let environmental agencies enforce anti-dumping laws.
Let communities organise clean-up campaigns.
Let schools teach environmental responsibility.
Let businesses take responsibility for the waste they generate.
Let citizens who deliberately pollute the environment face appropriate sanctions.
And let government invest in modern waste-management infrastructure.
There are many ways to keep a city clean.
Keeping millions of people indoors for a few hours every month should not automatically be regarded as the only or best way.
A Clean Environment Should Not Require an Unnecessarily Restrictive State
At the heart of this discussion is a simple principle.
Government exists to serve citizens, not merely to control them.
The state has a responsibility to protect public health and the environment. But it also has a responsibility to respect the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
These responsibilities should not be treated as mutually exclusive.
We can have clean streets and free citizens.
We can have effective environmental regulation and respect for constitutional rights.
We can encourage sanitation without creating an atmosphere of fear and unnecessary confrontation.
The judicial decisions from Lagos, Anambra and Edo show that this is not a simple legal question. The courts have taken different positions at different stages. That makes it even more important for governments to ensure that any restriction on fundamental rights is clearly grounded in law and consistent with constitutional safeguards.
Perhaps, therefore, my experience on MCC Road this morning is worth more than the few minutes of inconvenience it caused me.
Perhaps it is an opportunity to ask a larger question:
Can we clean our cities without unnecessarily restricting the freedom of the people who live in them?
I believe we can.
And we should try.
A clean environment is a public good.
Freedom of movement is a fundamental right.
We should not have to sacrifice one to achieve the other.
Sanitation should clean our streets not unnecessarily curtail our liberty.
Ik Ogbonna, PhD, is a University Lecturer and Public Relations Practitioner.