The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has dismissed a request by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, to ban public officials from seeking medical treatment abroad, stating that such a move would infringe on fundamental rights.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Polycarp Terna Kwahar ruled that preventing public officers from seeking medical attention outside Nigeria would be an unjust restriction on their fundamental rights.
“It will be an infringement or breach on the fundamental rights 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 Kwahar stated.
His ruling was unanimously supported by Justices Mohammed Mustapha and Paul Bassi, who affirmed the Federal High Court’s earlier judgment delivered on January 10, 2021.
Falana’s Case Against Government’s Handling Of Health Sector
Falana had dragged the Federal Government before the trial court in July 2010, arguing that Nigerians are entitled to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, as guaranteed by law.
Naijaonpoint reports that he maintained that the government’s failure to repair and equip public hospitals constituted a violation of its duty to protect citizens’ health.
The senior advocate sought:
A court order compelling the government to repair and equip public hospitals.
A ban on public officials accessing medical treatment abroad at public expense.
However, the trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that provision of adequate healthcare is ‘not justiciable’ under Section 6 (6) (C) of the 1999 Constitution.
Appeal Court Upholds Non-Justiciability Of Health Rights
Unhappy with the judgment, Falana appealed in 2021, but in its January 30, 2025, ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
The court agreed that the right to adequate medical facilities is part of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, making it non-justiciable and unenforceable in court.
During the proceedings, Falana presented evidence highlighting the poor state of public hospitals in Nigeria and how the lack of medical infrastructure has resulted in countless preventable deaths.
He further argued that he could lose his life if he fell ill in Nigeria due to the country’s ill-equipped hospitals, which are unable to handle serious health challenges.
Court Acknowledges Worrisome State Of Health Facilities But Sticks To Law
While the court admitted that Nigeria’s medical facilities remain inadequate and pose a significant challenge, it insisted that its ruling must be based on the law.
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?”
The Court said, “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”.