Can the State Trap You in Your Own Country? The Supreme Court Thinks So

This Article is an analysis of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision in EZIEGBO & ANOR v. ASCO INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 56864(SC), focusing on its interpretation of Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution.
In this decision, the Supreme Court, per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, reaffirmed a vital constitutional principle: while freedom of movement is a fundamental right under Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is not an absolute right. The judgment provides a nuanced interpretation, thereby balancing individual liberty with the rule of law and the needs of a democratic society.
Section 41(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides:
“Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom.”
However, Section 41(2) provides exceptions:
“…nothing in subsection (1) shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and that imposes restrictions… in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health…”
Justice Garba, JSC clarified that:
(1) The right to freedom of movement is constitutionally guaranteed, but
(2) It is not an unlimited license because it may be curtailed, interfered with, or limited if:
(a) The limitation is grounded in a valid law;
(b) The law is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society; and
(c) The interference is carried out in strict compliance with due process.
In essence, state authorities or even private actors cannot whimsically or arbitrarily restrict someone’s movement. However, where there’s legal backing and a justifiable societal interest, such a restriction can be lawful.
The Supreme Court also relied in the case of Onwo v. Oko (1996)
By further relying on the case of Onwo v. Oko (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 587, the Supreme Court reemphasized that fundamental rights (including movement) must be protected against abuse, particularly by those in positions of authority.
The judgment reaffirms judicial vigilance against abuses of power, whether by agents of state or private individuals.
It protects Nigerians’ internal and international movement rights, subject only to constitutional and lawful limits.
It underscores that any restriction on movement must pass the “democratic reasonableness” test and not merely administrative convenience.
This decision authorize lawful restrictions, including travel bans, immigration control, or even house arrest, if legally justifiable.
It may be invoked by the State in security-related matters, but the door remains open to judicial review where the legitimacy or necessity of such laws is questioned.
Conclusion
Freedom of movement is not a license to roam unchecked, and neither is it a privilege to be revoked on a whim. It is a fundamental right, constitutionally enshrined and judicially protected. It is one that exists within a structured framework of law.
This case strengthens the doctrine that constitutional rights can be limited, but only under the strictest scrutiny of legality, necessity, and proportionality.