CASE TITLE: OKORO v. NCDC & ORS (2025) LPELR-80676(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2025
JUSTICES: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.
LATEEF ADEBAYO GANIYU, J.C.A.
ASMAU OJUOLAPE AKANBI, J.C.A.
DIVISION: BENIN
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
FACTS:
This appeal borders on the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
This is an appeal against the Benin Division of the Federal High Court.
The crux of the applicant/appellant’s case was that on the 26th day of April, 2020, she went out of her home to get Panadol for body pain, having weaned her little child. According to the Appellant, opposite the pharmacy store was a COVID-19 screening/test center. The Appellant claimed that she voluntarily submitted herself to the screening/test center to be screened and tested for the COVID-19 virus. The Appellant further claimed that on the 28th day of April, 2020, she received a call from officials of the 1st Respondent informing her that her test result was positive and later that same day, officials of the 1st-3rd respondents visited her and requested that she leave her baby behind and follow them to the isolation center. Accordingly, the Appellant claimed these actions from the 1st to 3rd Respondents undermined her trust and thought, as she knew that she was not suffering from any infectious or contagious disease. She claimed that it was against her belief and conviction to take drugs or enter supportive accommodation for a non-existing disease. She also claimed that she requested the test result, which the 1st to 3rd Respondents refused to avail her. The Appellant further claimed that on the 29th day of April, 2020, she was declared wanted by the Respondents without any medical ground or condition.
The Appellant also alleged that a COVID-19 team of the 4th Respondent stormed her hometown to take her to the isolation center at Owerri. Amongst the allegations raised by the Appellant, she claimed that youths stormed her in-laws’ house at Umudom Village, Isi-Ala Mbano LGA, to burn it down for attempting to spread deadly disease within the community. She alleged that the test result, which declared her positive, was not investigated by the 1st to 3rd Respondents before the publication was made.
The Appellant claimed that she had another COVID-19 test taken at Irrua Specialist Hospital, where she also had herself photographed and that this test result came out negative.
Accordingly, the Appellant claimed that the Respondents had breached her fundamental rights to dignity, privacy of home and family life, and freedom of thought.
In response to the Appellant’s action, the Respondents filed their separate Counter-Affidavits, with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filing a joint Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the claims of the Appellant.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court gave judgment against the Appellant by dismissing the action. Displeased by the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The sole issue for determination was:
Whether the lower Court was right in its findings and decision regarding the alleged breach of the Appellant’s fundamental rights, particularly in relation to the joinder of parties, the disclosure of the Appellant’s medical records, and the evidential burden required to sustain the claims.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
It is the argument of the Appellant that she believes in her thoughts that she is hale and hearty as against the beliefs of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and as such, her freedom of thought has been infringed upon by the Respondents. Placing reliance on NMCN v. Adesina (2016) LPELR-40610 (CA), the Appellant counsel submitted that the right to freedom of thought as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria avails the Appellant with the choice of choosing to accept or refuse the treatment, thereby aligning with the Appellant’s choice to refuse medical treatment and supportive accommodation as provided for by the Respondents, citing MDPDT vs. Okonkwo (2001) LPELR-1856 (SC) and Section 38(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
It is the 1st Respondent’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a justifiable ground for the disclosure made by the 1st Respondent of the positive status of the Appellant as the same was done in the interest of public safety and public health. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent submitted that even if the Appellant had successfully proved her case of an infringement of her fundamental rights at the lower Court, she still would not have enjoyed the protection of the law because the supposed infraction of her constitutional rights is solidly backed up by legislation in Nigeria, citing Sections 26(2)(e) and 27 of the National Health Act, 2014, and Section 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIO:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether the outbreak of Covid-19 is a matter of public health and measures taken to curtail the spread of same can be considered a breach of fundamental human right
“I must say that, contrary to the contention of the Appellant, the 1st Respondent disclosed her health status to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, which prompted the 2nd-4th Respondents to declare the Appellant wanted on account that she had contracted COVID-19, which she considered a breach of her fundamental right and thereby subjected her to public outcry and social degradation. Without mincing words, the outbreak of COVID-19 was a threat to the whole world, and globally formidable steps were taken to isolate whoever is inflicted with the deadly disease, which is contagious and required to be nipped in the bud in order to eliminate its spread across the globe. Therefore, whatever legitimate measure is put in place to ensure that a patient suffering from this disease is prevented from intermingling with the populace cannot be considered a violation of the suspected patient’s fundamental rights. The truth must be told that, as inalienable as fundamental human rights entrenched in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, are, the same constitution provides for exceptional circumstances when such rights can be curtailed. The provision of Section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution is illustrative in this regard. It provides thus: “45(1) Nothing in Sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society-) in the interest of defence, public safety, public morality, or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.” Needless to say, the outbreak of Covid-19 has to do with public health, and any measure put in place by the Respondents to eradicate the spread of the disease cannot be considered by a suspected patient, such as the Appellant as a violation of her fundamental human right because it is settled law that the interest of an individual or group cannot supersede that of the state. See ADEYINKA ABOSEDE BADEJO (MISS) V. FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ANOR (1996) 9 NWLR (Part 464) Page 15 at Page 19 Ratio 2, where it was held thus: “A fundamental right is certainly a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land. However, no fundamental right should stand above the country, state, or the people (p. 41, paras. E-F). Per KUTIGI, JSC at 15.C at page 41, paras. C-E. Chief Ajayi ought to have realized that for a Court of law to have proceeded in the way he suggested would amount to putting the entire Federal Republic of Nigeria at the mercy of one aggrieved individual. A case of total “brutalization” of the people’s fundamental right when compared with an infringement of the appellant’s fundamental right? That to me would again amount to a subversion. Again, Chief Ajayi’s submission that the Court of Appeal on 8/10/90 should have cancelled the whole exercise of the interviews of 8/10/88, which affected the appellant and ordered fresh interviews is, to say the least, preposterous. Admittedly, the interviews were held on 8/10/88, and the 1989 academic year for Secondary-2 (former secondary 1) had already commenced when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 8/1/90. In short, Chief Ajayi wanted the Court of Appeal to put the hands of the clock backwards by 2 academic years! The end result? Chaos! I repeat, chaos all over the country! No Court should allow itself to be used as an instrument of subversion under the guise of enforcing a fundamental right.” Per LATEEF ADEBAYO GANIYU, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
