*Says It Is Controlled Movement Not Total Restriction, As Governor Commends Residents For Participation
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The Lagos State Government has defended the reintroduction of its monthly environmental sanitation exercise, with Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Lawal Pedro insisting it is lawful and supported by a subsisting Court of Appeal judgment, directly contradicting Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa who had condemned the exercise as “plainly illegal and unconstitutional” and challenged the government to publish any law it claims to rely upon.
The exchange between two of Lagos State’s most prominent legal figures has transformed a routine policy debate into a constitutional confrontation that appears headed for definitive resolution at the Supreme Court, where Adegboruwa’s appeal against the very Court of Appeal judgment Pedro is citing remains pending.
Meanwhile, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu praised Lagosians for participating in the exercise, describing their turnout as “patriotic” and embodying “the Spirit of Lagos,” even as the legal battle over the exercise’s validity intensifies.
In a statement issued on April 25, 2026, Pedro directly addressed what he described as misrepresentations in media reports about the legality of the sanitation exercise.
“The narration in the media on the Court of Appeal ruling in respect of the case on environmental sanitation in Lagos is not correct,” the Attorney-General stated.
Pedro cited the subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria in Appeal No. CA/L/381/2015, delivered on November 23, 2021, as the legal foundation for the government’s position.
“The court held that the environmental sanitation exercise in Lagos State was valid and backed by law and that the fundamental right of the applicant, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, was not breached,” Pedro stated.
The Attorney-General noted that Adegboruwa, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, but that the apex court has not yet determined the appeal or set aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
“The Supreme Court is yet to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It will not be unlawful to have a controlled movement during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise,” Pedro stated.
In the Nigerian legal system, a judgment remains valid and enforceable until it is reversed by a higher court. Since the Supreme Court has not set aside the Court of Appeal’s 2021 ruling, the government argues that the appellate court’s judgment upholding the sanitation exercise remains the law.
Pedro also addressed an earlier Court of Appeal decision in the case of Faith Okafor v. Lagos State Government & Anor, which some commentators have cited as authority against the sanitation exercise.
The Attorney-General argued that the Okafor judgment has been superseded by the later 2021 judgment in the Adegboruwa case and can no longer be regarded as representing the current legal position.
“That judgment cannot be regarded as the extant position of the law and can be said to have been superseded by the current 2021 judgment,” Pedro stated.
The argument is legally significant. When two decisions of the same court address similar issues and reach different conclusions, the later decision is generally regarded as the more authoritative statement of the law, particularly where it considered and departed from the earlier ruling. If the 2021 judgment in the Adegboruwa case addressed the issues raised in the Okafor case and reached a different conclusion, it would indeed represent the current appellate position.
Pedro drew a distinction between total restriction of movement and what the government describes as “controlled movement,” a characterisation designed to counter Adegboruwa’s claim that residents were “forced to stay in their homes.”
“What the government introduced is a controlled movement of residents. Residents are free to go anywhere they wish through roads and streets that are not blocked,” Pedro stated.
He explained that only areas where sanitation activities are actively underway may be temporarily restricted. “In other words, streets where cleaning is ongoing may be blocked to protect people and officials involved in the exercise from motorists,” Pedro added.
The distinction, if factually accurate on the ground, would significantly reduce the constitutional implications of the exercise. A temporary blockage of specific streets where cleaning is actively underway is more easily justified as a safety measure than a blanket restriction preventing residents from leaving their homes for two hours.
However, Adegboruwa’s account of Saturday’s enforcement, in which he described the deployment of “law enforcement agencies, LASTMA, health officers and even area boys (agberos)” to prevent citizens from moving freely, paints a picture that goes well beyond the targeted street blockages Pedro described. If the enforcement on the ground involved preventing residents from leaving their homes regardless of whether their specific streets were being cleaned, the government’s characterisation of “controlled movement” would not match the reality.
Adegboruwa’s statement, issued on Saturday, took an uncompromising position that the exercise is illegal regardless of any Court of Appeal judgment.
“For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, there is currently no law in force in Lagos State which permits the government to restrict movement of persons for the purpose of enforcing monthly environmental sanitation. I challenge Lagos State Government to publish such a law, if at all it exists,” the senior advocate declared.
He accused the government of deploying excessive force in enforcement. “In forceful enforcement of this illegal policy, the government deployed all its arsenals, including law enforcement agencies, LASTMA, health officers and even area boys (agberos) to harass, intimidate and threaten innocent citizens from the lawful exercise of their fundamental and constitutional rights to move freely,” Adegboruwa stated.
He described the monthly exercise as “archaic and anachronistic,” a relic of military-era governance that has no place in a democratic society, and stated that “no resident of Lagos State should suffer any penalty or disability for ignoring such illegal policy.”
The crux of the legal dispute now rests with the Supreme Court, where Adegboruwa’s appeal against the 2021 Court of Appeal judgment remains pending.
Pedro’s argument is straightforward: until the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal judgment, that judgment stands and the sanitation exercise is legal. Adegboruwa’s argument is equally straightforward: the exercise violates fundamental constitutional rights regardless of the Court of Appeal’s position, and the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter.
The fact that both men are citing the same case, Appeal No. CA/L/381/2015, from opposite sides illustrates the nature of the dispute. The government won at the Court of Appeal and relies on that victory as current law. Adegboruwa lost at the Court of Appeal and has taken the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing the appellate court was wrong.
Until the Supreme Court rules, the legal position is technically as Pedro states it: the subsisting judgment supports the government’s right to conduct the sanitation exercise with controlled movement restrictions. However, the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal means the legal question is not definitively settled, and the possibility remains that the apex court could overturn the Court of Appeal and declare the exercise unconstitutional.
While his Attorney-General engaged in legal sparring with Adegboruwa, Governor Sanwo-Olu took a more conciliatory tone, praising Lagosians for their participation in the reintroduced exercise.
In a statement issued on Sunday by Commissioner for Information and Strategy Gbenga Omotoso, the governor expressed gratitude to residents.
“I thank Lagosians who joined the call to clean up our environment as a sure step to good health. That is patriotic; it is the Spirit of Lagos that we often speak about. We should continue to walk that path,” Sanwo-Olu stated.
The government reported impressive turnout across various parts of Lagos, including Ikorodu, Badagry, Lagos Island, Lagos Mainland, Alimosho, Ikeja, and Agege.
The governor urged residents to desist from indiscriminate dumping of refuse, particularly with the rainy season approaching. The statement noted that the government had intensified clearing of gutters and drainage systems to prevent flooding, following forecasts of heavy rainfall.
The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, in collaboration with the Ministry of Information and Strategy, has launched a campaign against indiscriminate waste disposal and blockage of drainage channels.
The dispute reveals two fundamentally different narratives about the same event.
In the government’s narrative, the monthly environmental sanitation exercise is a lawful, court-validated policy that promotes public health, prevents flooding, and demonstrates civic responsibility. Participation is patriotic. Movement is merely controlled, not restricted. Streets are only temporarily blocked where cleaning is actively underway. And residents overwhelmingly support the initiative.
In Adegboruwa’s narrative, the exercise is an illegal, unconstitutional restriction of fundamental rights rooted in military-era authoritarianism. Enforcement is heavy-handed, involving intimidation by law enforcement, traffic officials, and even informal enforcers. The claimed legal foundation is a law the government has refused to publish. And the exercise serves as a periodic demonstration of state power over citizens who should be free to move as they please.
The truth likely contains elements of both narratives. The Court of Appeal has indeed upheld the exercise, giving the government a legal basis that Adegboruwa has not yet succeeded in overturning. But Adegboruwa’s description of the enforcement methods, including the alleged deployment of “area boys,” if accurate, goes well beyond what any court has sanctioned and crosses the line from controlled movement into coercive restriction.
The definitive resolution of the dispute awaits the Supreme Court’s determination of Adegboruwa’s appeal.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal and affirms the legality of the sanitation exercise, the government’s position will be vindicated and the exercise will continue on solid legal ground.
If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal and declares the movement restriction unconstitutional, the government will need to find alternative methods of promoting environmental sanitation that do not involve restricting residents’ freedom of movement, methods that exist in comparable cities worldwide without requiring citizens to stay indoors.
Until that ruling comes, Lagos will continue to experience the monthly spectacle of a government enforcing a sanitation exercise it says is legal and a Senior Advocate declaring it unconstitutional, with millions of residents caught between the two positions, unsure whether compliance is civic duty or submission to an unlawful order.
As Pedro stated: “The Supreme Court is yet to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”
As Adegboruwa countered: “I challenge Lagos State Government to publish such a law, if at all it exists.”
The Supreme Court holds the answer. Lagos awaits.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
