We firmly believe that the restrictions on movement during the Calabar Carnival may constitute a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of movement, even though we acknowledge that Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution restricts several fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to freedom of movement. But in this paper, we\’ll look at both sides of the argument. To fully comprehend these points, it is necessary to replicate the clauses found in Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution;
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 order, public morality or public health or
For the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.
Here, we\’re interested in determining whether or not the movement restrictions imposed during the Calabar Carnival affect the citizens\’ freedom to travel. To find out, it is appropriate to start by thinking about the reasons behind road closures during carnival. It is possible to view the road closures during the Calabar Carnival as an essential precaution to guarantee the event\’s safety and seamless operation. It facilitates crowd management, traffic management, and incident or accident prevention. It is designed to maintain everyone\’s safety and the orderly progress of the entire event while momentarily restricting individual mobility. It is reasonable to conclude that this is done to ensure that everyone visiting the carnival has a safe and pleasurable experience.
It is argued that the restriction of the right to movement during the carnival event may not fall within the contemplation of its exceptions under the general interpretation of the first exception to fundamental rights under paragraph 1(a). On the other hand, it is argued that the Cross River State Government is justified under paragraph 1(b) of the aforementioned provisions in restricting the movement of its citizens during the Calabar Carnival. It is also claimed to be justified in this regard by safeguarding the participants\’ freedom to dance freely and their rights to not be injured in any way throughout the event.
Legally speaking, it is the court of law that possesses the sole discretion to determine whether or not restricting movement of persons during the carnival is a violation of their fundamental right under Section 41. In determining this, the court evaluates the facts and circumstances of the case. There are several instances wherein the court considers a restriction imposed by a state government on its citizens as a breach of right to movement. For instance, in FAITH OKAFOR V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT (2016) LPELR-41066 (CA) the court declared the restriction of the Appellant movement on monthly environmental sanitation days by Lagos State Government which led to her arrest as null and void; stating inter alia that it amounts to an infringement of her right to move freely as guaranteed under Section 41(1) CFRN 1999. Also, the Human rights committee in GORJI-DINKA V. CAMEROON found a violation of freedom of movement where a person was arbitrarily put under house arrest. In the old case of WILLIAMS V. MAJEKODUNMI (1962) NSCC 268, the Federal Supreme Court examined the import of the guarantee in Section 26(1) of the constitution which is in pari material with Section 41(1) CFRN 1999; it was held 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.
Based on a plethora of legal rulings regarding the limitation of freedom of movement, is it possible to argue that preventing certain individuals from moving freely during a carnival constitutes a breach of their rights? The answer is, in my opinion, negative. The rationale is that determining the appropriateness of the Cross River State Government\’s actions concerning the Calabar Carnival involves striking a balance between the rights of individuals and public safety. Individual rights are generally subordinated in favor of public safety. In all likelihood, the event planners also make an effort to reduce disruptions by offering alternate routes that allow people to move around.
Conclusively, we acknowledge the fact that the Calabar Carnival is an annual event to show case and exhibit the great cultural heritage of crossriverians, however, it is important still for the government to always consider the movement of person within this period and try to strike a balance in ensuring that while the event is going on, persons can go about their usual activities, freely.
Note: The above publication wasn’t written by calabargist content creators neither do we support or disagree with the writers Information.
REFERENCES
1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN NIGERIA BY CHIJIOKE EMEKA (2020)
AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHT CASES REPORT
