Sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Femi Gbajabiamila, the bill seeks to, among other things, make possession of
health cards mandatory for international travellers leaving or arriving in
Nigeria — just like the cards for yellow fever.
Adapted from a similar law in Singapore, some Nigerians have
labelled it draconian and unfit for a democratic Nigeria.
Some critics of the bill also questioned the powers it
vested in the Director-General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and
the health minister.
Mr Melaye had on May 5, filed the suit FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2020,
citing alleged breach of his right to freedom and life.
Joined as defendants in the suit are Clerk of the National
Assembly, Clerk and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Attorney-General
of the Federation and the Inspector-General of Police.
He urged the court to delete sections 5, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of
the bill, which he said constituted a violation or would likely violate his
rights under the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights as well the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The provisions of the bill being contested by the former
senator included the ones seeking to empower the Director-General of the NCDC
to compel anyone to take medical examination or treatment and also collect the
blood sample of such person in the case of a public health emergency.
Also, part of the provisions also seeks to empower the NCDC to take over any premises and turn them into isolation centres without compensation for the owner.
The bill also seeks to arrest and detain a suspected
infected person with his or her consent.
Mr Melaye alleged that the controversial bill, if passed
into law would specifically violate his fundamental rights to dignity of his
person, personal liberty, private and family life, right to freedom of movement
and right to own immovable property in Nigeria.
But, on Tuesday, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu upheld the notices of
preliminary objection filed against the suit for lack of jurisdiction to hear
it.
Justice Ojukwu, who did not bother to consider the case on
merit, held that the issue raised in it was not justiciable, as the bill could
not be a subject of litigation until it is signed into law.
Relying on the doctrine of separation of powers, the court said it could not at this stage determine whether contents of the Bill would amount to gross violation of fundamental rights of the applicant.
0 Comments