CALABAR CARNIVAL AND THE LIMITATION TO THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF ITS PEOPLE BY GREATNESS EYONSA .E. | Greatness Eyonsa

Explore

CALABAR CARNIVAL AND THE LIMITATION TO THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF ITS PEOPLE BY GREATNESS EYONSA .E.

While I recognize the provisions of Section 45 of the Nigerian Constitution which restricts several fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to freedom of movement, i am of the firm view that the restriction of movement during the calabar carnival may amount to a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of movement. However, both sides of the coins will be considered in this paper.

For a proper understanding of these arguments, it is important to reproduce the provisions of Section 45 of the Nigerian constitution;

45(1) Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of this constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society

(a) In the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health or

(b) For the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.

The focus here is whether or not the restriction of movement during the calabar carnival is a limitation to the right to movement of its citizens.

To determine this, it is apt to firstly, consider why roads are blocked during carnival. The blocking of roads during the calabar carnival can be seen as a necessary measure to ensure the safety and smooth execution of the event. It helps in managing the large crowds, controlling traffic, and preventing accidents or incidents. It is calculated to limit individual mobility temporarily, and to ensure the safety and smooth flow of the entire event. It is therefore safe to say that it is done to create a secure and enjoyable environment for everyone attending the carnival.

It is argued that from the interpretation of the first exception to fundamental rights generally under paragraph 1(a), the restriction of the right to movement during the carnival event may not fall within the contemplation of its exceptions, however, it can be argued that under paragraph 1(b) of the foregoing provisions, the Cross River State Government is justified by restricting the movement of its citizens during calabar carnival. And it is said to be justified under this sense by protecting the rights of the active participants in the event from maybe been harmed or any form of accident whatsoever and also, to protect their freedom to dance freely.

Legally speaking, it is the court of law that possesses the sole discretion to determine whether or not restricting movement of persons during the carnival is a violation of their fundamental right under Section 41. In determining this, the court evaluates the facts and circumstances of the case.

There are several instances wherein the court considers a restriction imposed by a state government on its citizens as a breach of right to movement. For instance, in FAITH OKAFOR V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT (2016) LPELR-41066 (CA) the court declared the restriction of the Appellant movement on monthly environmental sanitation days by Lagos State Government which led to her arrest as null and void; stating inter alia that it amounts to an infringement of her right to move freely as guaranteed under Section 41(1) CFRN 1999. Also, the Human rights committee in GORJI-DINKA V. CAMEROON found a violation of freedom of movement where a person was arbitrarily put under house arrest. In the old case of WILLIAMS V. MAJEKODUNMI (1962) NSCC 268, the Federal Supreme Court examined the import of the guarantee in Section 26(1) of the constitution which is in pari material with Section 41(1) CFRN 1999; it was held that a restriction order of 29th May, 1962 which limited Chief F.R.A Williams within a distance of three miles, from his house was an infringement of his right to move freely within Nigeria.

Flowing from the catena of judicial pronouncements by the courts of law with regards to the restriction of freedom of movement, can it be said that restricting some persons from moving freely during carnival is a violation of their rights? In my opinion, the answer is on the negative. The reason is that, considering whether or not the actions of the Cross River State Government is right with regards to the calabar carnival is a matter of trying to find a balance between public safety and individual rights. Most often than not, public safety is usually prioritized over individual rights. Also, realistically, the organizers of the event usually try to minimize the inconvenience by providing alternative routes in other to enable person’s move.

Conclusively, we acknowledge the fact that the Calabar Carnival is an annual event to show case and exhibit the great cultural heritage of crossriverians, however, it is important still for the government to always consider the movement of person within this period and try to strike a balance in ensuring that while the event is going on, persons can go about their usual activities, freely.