The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared that mandatory or coercive medical interventions, such as vaccination without voluntary consent, are unconstitutional.

READ ALSO: The $430m Deficit: Nigeria’s Race Against Time to Fund Life-Saving Vaccines

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa made the declaration while delivering judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by a non-governmental organisation, the Incorporated Trustees of Equity International Initiative, against the Lagos State Government.

While acknowledging that public health policies are vital, the court held that they must be carried out within the bounds of the law and with respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Equity International Initiative had sought a judicial declaration and injunctive relief against a series of circulars and directives issued by the state, in which it alleged mandated vaccination without residents’ consent, thus violating their fundamental rights.

In its arguments, the applicant asserted that the directives breached rights guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution, including the rights to life, dignity of the human person, privacy, and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

The judge also held that rights such as bodily integrity and the freedom to refuse medical treatment remain protected under Nigerian law.

Apart from the state government, other respondents in the case are the Lagos State Primary Healthcare Board, the state’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, and the Commissioner of Police.

In their preliminary objections, the respondents challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the applicant’s locus standi, and the validity of the suit.

They further argued that the matter had become academic, noting that the vaccination campaign and related directives had since expired.

In his judgment, Justice Lewis-Allagoa dismissed the objections entirely, ruling that the court had the proper jurisdiction to hear the case.

The judge also held that fundamental rights enforcement actions are sui generis and can be brought where there is evidence of actual, threat, or threatened violations.

The court further stated that the applicant had adequate legal standing to bring action on behalf of affected residents, describing the case as a valid form of public interest litigation dedicated to protecting the rights of a broad segment of society.

On whether the case was academic, the court held that the expiration of the directives did not eliminate the alleged violations nor the potential for future infringements.

It stated that courts are empowered to address both ongoing and threatened breaches of fundamental rights.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa further stressed the importance of informed consent in medical procedures, stating that any form of compulsory or coercive medical intervention without voluntary agreement could constitute a breach of constitutional and internationally recognised rights.

The judge therefore declared that the respondents had no constitutional authority or power to vaccinate any child or adult resident in Lagos State, Nigeria, without the prior written consent of the child’s parent or guardian, or of that adult.

The court also restrained the respondents, by themselves or through their agents, servants, or employees, from vaccinating any child at any school in Lagos State without the prior written consent of the child’s parent or guardian.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa further granted a perpetual order restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, privies, servants, employees, or any other persons taking instructions from them, from implementing the proposed mass vaccination in Lagos State schools and other places.

The court described the case as a valid form of public interest litigation dedicated to protecting the rights of a broad segment of society.