Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has criticised the Lagos State Government’s decision to reintroduce the monthly environmental sanitation exercise, which restricts movement for three hours on the last Saturday of every month.

Falana described the policy as a “sad reminder” of practices inherited from Nigeria’s military era, arguing that such restrictions are unconstitutional and unnecessary.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria said the move could not be justified, particularly in light of the ₦236 billion allocated to environmental matters in the Lagos State 2026 budget.

According to him, the appropriation covers urban waste management and sanitation programmes, which should focus on improving the state’s waste disposal systems rather than restricting residents’ movement.

Falana urged the government to prioritise the recruitment of more sanitation workers and the acquisition of modern waste management equipment, including mechanical sweepers for heavy debris and vacuum sweepers for dust and litter.

He also cited the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Faith Okafor v. Lagos State Government, which he said declared movement restrictions during environmental sanitation hours illegal and unconstitutional.

Falana explained that the case involved Faith Okafor, who was arrested on May 25, 2013, for allegedly violating movement restrictions during the sanitation exercise between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m.

According to him, Okafor was detained with several others and later arraigned before a Special Offences Court, where she pleaded guilty and was fined ₦2,000 for wandering and loitering during the sanitation period.

He argued that prosecuting citizens for offences not prescribed in any written law but based solely on executive directives could create a dangerous precedent.

Falana warned that such actions could grant public officials “infinite, absolute and autocratic powers” contrary to constitutional provisions.

He therefore urged the Lagos State Government to halt the planned reintroduction of the sanitation restriction, warning that proceeding with it would amount to disregarding an existing appellate court judgment.