A fresh controversy has erupted in Lagos as human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) urged residents to disregard the state government’s restriction of movement during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise, insisting it lacks legal backing.
Falana maintained that Lagosians are free to go about their normal activities, stressing that no existing law mandates citizens to remain indoors during the exercise. According to him, any restriction tied to the sanitation programme is voluntary, not enforceable.
However, the Lagos State Government has pushed back, reaffirming that the sanitation exercise remains valid and will hold as scheduled. The Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, dismissed claims that a court ruling had nullified the initiative.
Wahab stated that the government secured a favourable judgment at the Court of Appeal, which upheld the legality and constitutionality of the laws guiding environmental sanitation enforcement. He urged residents to ignore what he described as misinformation and to fully participate in the exercise held between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.
The sanitation programme was reintroduced by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu on March 14, when he led top officials, including Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat, in a public cleanup campaign in Mushin.
But Falana criticised the policy, describing it as a relic of military-era governance that infringes on citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly freedom of movement. He argued that Lagos cannot sustain such measures in a democratic setting.
Despite his objections, Falana acknowledged that the government continues to encourage voluntary participation, urging residents to clean their surroundings and cooperate with waste management officials during the exercise.
He also pointed to the state’s financial commitment to environmental management, noting that N236 billion has been earmarked in the 2026 budget for waste management, drainage expansion, and environmental protection.
The disagreement highlights an ongoing tension between public policy enforcement and constitutional rights, leaving residents caught between official directives and legal interpretation.
