The Court of Appeal in Lagos has rejected a request from Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, to impose a ban on public officials seeking medical treatment overseas.
“It will be an infringement or breach on the Fundamental Right of Nigerians be they Public Officers or not to prevent them from seeking medical attention outside Nigeria when the need arises, and it will therefore be draconian to grant the request,” Justice Polycarp Terna Kwahar who read the judgment on behalf of the three man panel of justices held.
The other justices of the Court, Justice Mohammed Mustapha and Justice Paul Bassi, agreed with and upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court in Ikeja, delivered on January 10, 2021.
In July 2010, Femi Falana had taken the Federal Government to court, seeking a declaration that Nigerians are entitled to the highest standard of physical and mental health, as guaranteed by law. He argued that the government’s failure to repair and equip public hospitals violated citizens’ right to health and access to medical care.
Falana also requested a court order to compel the government to improve hospitals and to prevent public officials from seeking medical treatment abroad at public expense.
Read Also: Former Minority Leader Olujimi Speaks With Fresh Revelation On Akpabio Amid Natasha’s Sexual Harassment Allegations
The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the provision of adequate medical and health facilities is “not justiciable” under Section 6(6)(C) of the constitution.
Unhappy with this decision, Falana appealed in 2021. In a unanimous ruling on January 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, stating that the right to adequate medical facilities in Nigeria falls under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, making it “non-justiciable.”
While the Court acknowledged the inadequacy of public hospitals in Nigeria, as demonstrated by Falana, and the unfortunate consequences of this lack of healthcare facilities, the court emphasized that, despite these challenges, the law must prevail.
The court also said that “It is very obvious that the right to adequate medical facilities does not come under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution [as amended], so It will therefore be anachronistic to leapfrog this human right into fundamental right.”
The judgment reads in part: “Notwithstanding that there are cases where the right to life is expanded to include the right to food and shelter, however, since the issue before me is on medical or health matters, I shall not go on frolic to analyse the issue of right to food and shelter in this appeal. How would the matter of Public Officers treatment outside Nigeria be an issue that is linked with the fundamental right of the Appellant!” The question to ask is, what does fundamental right means?
Read Also: Natasha’s Husband Sends Strong Message To Akpabio
The Court said that “A fundamental right is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Fundamental rights’ means any of the fundamental rights provided for in Chapter IV of the Constitution and includes any of the rights stipulated in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004.”
“Merely entrenching a right in the 1999 Constitution does not automatically make such a right ‘fundamental right’.
“Of all the cases referred to by the Appellant, none of them has any link with our jurisprudence. They are all from India, and this court is not bound to follow them. Persuasive as they are, I refuse to follow those cases as highlighted below:
“(a) Paschin Banga Kher Mazdouer Samity V. State of West Bengel (1996) 4 SCL.
“(b) Pt Parmanand Katara V. Union of India &Ors (1989) CS 2039.
“(c) Consumer Education and Research Centres & Ors V. Union of India.
“On the contrary, it will be an infringement or breach on the Fundamental Right of Nigerians, be they Public Officers or not, to prevent them from seeking medical attention outside Nigeria when the need arises, this Court will therefore be draconian to grant the prayers.
“Although the averment of the Applicant/Appellant were not controverted at the trial court by the Respondent, this court been a court of justice, looked at the affidavit of the Appellant at the lower court and the facts therein do not fly with the extant laws on fundamental right so cannot be swept under the carpet, since doing otherwise will be going against judicial precedent and against the settled principle of stare decisis.
“This application brought by the appellant seeks to import into Chapter IV what was not and is not provided for, granting the prayers in this appeal will be a travesty of justice. The lower Court did a very perfect Constitutional Law analysis and rightly too, by explaining the difference between economic, social and cultural rights since these Human Rights fall under Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution and not under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution.” I find no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the appeal and affirm the Ruling delivered by the Federal High Court, Ikeja on the 10ht January, 2011.
“I make no orders as to cost.”
In a statement made available to the press Sunday afternoon, Falana in his reaction to the judgment, said that “the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate that it is discriminatory to allow a few public officers to seek medical treatment abroad while the millions of poor citizens are allowed to die in ill-equipped local hospitals.”
Falana further said, “The Court equally failed to realise that the fundamental right to life is incomplete without the protection of the right to health by the federal, state, and local governments in Nigeria. I will certainly challenge the erroneous judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court on account of the constitutional guarantee of right to life and equality before the law”.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
