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

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that 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 1st to 4th 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 tye court.

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 group sought two questions.

The lawyers want the court to determine whether the duties of the AEPB under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, extends 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, 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 does 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 1st 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 Abuja Environmental Protect Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent. .

A Project Assistant with R.A. Mom and Associates, Ayomide Joshua, in the affidavit she deposed to, said the applicant is a non-partisan and non-profit human rights organisation.

She said the organisation has as its objectives, among others, the provision of free legal services to vulnerable women in Nigeria.

She said the group had rendered assistance to over 200 women in Abuja on account of their being harassed, arrested and prosecuted before mobile courts by AEPB.

She said the group had provided pro bono legal assistance to vulnerable women who were raided, harassed, arrested and prosecuted by officers of the AEPB on suspicion of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.

She averred that in 2019, the lawyers rendered free legal assistance to more than 30 women whose rights were allegedly violated by AEPB and the Nigeria Police Force.

“A copy of the judgement of one of the cases that the applicant filed on behalf of the victims of the 1st respondent is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit A,” she said.

The worker said that these 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 above-mentioned cases are of both national and international concerns, involving international organisations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Open Society Fund, along with over 30 local organisations

She said though the women were prosecuted relying on Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, she said the section 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 to be engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under the section.

She 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 accuses them of prostitution and selling their bodies.

She 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.

She said the rights of these women are being violated by the board.

“I know as a fact this violation stems from the 1st respondent’s demeaning comparison of these women bodies to articles or goods displaced for sale.”

She said before instituting the matter, a pre-action notice dated Feb. 16, 2021, was served on AEPB.

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 1st to 3rd respondents in 2019.

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

He said the copy of the judgment attached was not complete as the last pages were missing.

According to him, this honourable court cannot rely on a judgment which is not signed by the presiding judge and duly certified.

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

He said contrary to the applicant’s argument, the 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.

He said such suspect too has the right to defend himself or raise any objection for his or her arrest at trial before a court.

Gidado said all the information contained therein was hypothetical and speculative since applicant was not the person arrested and the source of the information was not disclosed by the deponent.

He argued that the applicant did not state how its fundamental human rights were violated and which of the rights was violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to warrant filing of the action.

The officer averred that the applicant was not the person whose fundamental human rights were allegedly violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents.

“The person (s) alleged to have been harassed, arrested or raided by the 1st to 3rd respondents are not before the court to narrate their side of the story,” he added.

He said the applicant did not present any facts to support the assertion that the 1st to 3rd respondents have always harassed and prosecuted women in Abuja.

Gidado said the applicant did not specifically mention the rights (as outlined in Chapter IV of the Constitution) violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to enable the respondents to reply to the issues appropriately.

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

Also, the AGF, in his counter affidavit deposed to by Barnabas Onoja, a Litigation Officer, argued that all the facts, as presented by the applicant, were untrue and misleading.

Onoja said 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 the 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)