IPOB sit at home order and the Right to freedom of movement

 Does the Recent Mandatory Sit _at_home Order by IPOB in eastern Nigeria States supersede the Right to Freedom of Movement

On August 9th, 2021, the Indigeneous People of Biafra (IPOB), a secessionist group in eastern Nigeria ordered a weekly sit_at_home exercise across the eastern states in solidarity with its detained leader; Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's who was brought back to Nigeria in a controversial manner by the federal government, and is standing trial at the Federal High Court, Abuja. He is facing charges bordering on treasonable felony instituted against him in response to years of campaign for the independent of Republic of Biafra.

The Right to Freedom of Movement enjoys a constitutional force and is entrenched among the Fundamental Human Rights of Nigerians. The concept of the right differs by country. In Nigeria Constitution, for example, it's guaranteed only Nigerian citizens. In South Africa, it's guaranteed to everyone within the territory of South Africa. This write up will put emphasis on right to move freely only and not other context of the Right to Freedom of Movement.

INTRODUCTION

The very first characteristics of living things is movement, as seen in the basic biology acronym MR_NIGERD. This is because, living things, especially human beings move around for survival, to acquire basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, etc. This right is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other human rights, for example, Right to Life and Liberty.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT

The draftsman of the 1999 Constitution, which is the highest law in Nigeria, included these rights as part of the Fundamental Human Rights as seen in Section 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. "Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry" thereto or exit therefrom". This does not mean that non-Nigerian citizens have no right to enter Nigeria or move freely to Nigeria or exit Nigeria. It means that these rights are not guaranteed them as a constitutional right as guaranteed to citizens of Nigeria.

Cases where this has been applied are

1) Re Williams v Majekodunmi: The court held in this case that a Restriction Order of 29th May, 1962, which limited Chief F.R.A. Williams within a distance of three miles from his house was an infringement of his right to move freely within Nigeria.

2) Goriji_Dinka v Cameroon: The Human Rights Committee found a violation of the right to freedom of movement where a person was put under house arrest.

Other contexts of these rights include; The right of every citizen to move freely within Nigeria; right to reside in any part of Nigeria; right to be expelled from Nigeria; right not to be refused entry into Nigeria; right not to be prevented from leaving Nigeria.

LIMITATION AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

The right to Freedom of Movement is not absolute. Section 45 (1) of the same Constitution provides a limitation to it by any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in cases where it's in the interest of defence, public safety, order, morality or public health or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other people.

This justifies restrictions on freedom of movement of suspect and convicts, in terms of detention, imprisonment. Also, justifies the imposition of curfew and restrictions of a person's movement to a particular place, restrictions on exist of citizens to enemy countries. 

An example of a case is Faith Okafor v Lagos State Government: Here the Court of Appeal held that restrictions of freedom of movement for environmental sanitation on the last Saturday of the month was unconstitutional. It turned out that there was no law limiting the right to movement in the case, it was only a mere directives by the governor.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MONDAY SIT_AT_HOME ORDER AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

In light of the above analysis, the sit_at_home order is a restriction on the right to freedom of movement. Although the reasons given of it being a solidarity exercise for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu sounds empathetic. It's unconstitutional, as it doesn't fall within the provisions of the Constitution; that is the right to freedom of movement can be derogated by a law that is reasonably justifiable for the interest of defence, public safety, etc. The sit_at_home order is not a law made by the government, but a directive given by IPOB.

This notwithstanding, the directive has been observed judiciously in all the eastern states of Nigeria in solidarity of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The observation of the order is most times kept by fear of violence, as some armed men are seen in public areas like markets, where they shoot guns to scare traders and others around to run home. On the other hand, on 16th of August, 2021 the sit_at_home directives was reportedly suspended by IPOB saying that the civil action will now hold on the days it detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu appears in court. This implies that the next sit _at_home will be on October 21st, 2021. Ironically, those who went about their daily business ran back home, as it was heard that some armed men went through some places in Enugu, shooting sporadically to scare people to go home.

People living in eastern Nigeria are not sure when this situation will end, or at what stage the states government will intervene. We however, pray that the federal government will do justice by Mazi Kanu, so that peace can be restored.