THE Court of Appeal in Lagos has dismissed a request by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, seeking to bar public officials from traveling abroad for medical treatment.
Delivering the ruling on behalf of a three-man panel, Justice Polycarp Terna Kwahar stated that prohibiting Nigerians, including public officers, from seeking medical care outside the country would violate their fundamental rights.
He described such a restriction as “draconian.” Justices Mohammed Mustapha and Paul Bassi concurred, upholding the Federal High Court’s judgment delivered on January 10, 2021.
Falana had initially filed the case in July 2010, arguing that the Nigerian government’s failure to repair and equip public hospitals violated citizens’ right to quality healthcare.
He sought a court order compelling the government to improve public health facilities and to prohibit public officials from seeking medical treatment abroad at taxpayers’ expense.
However, the Federal High Court ruled that ensuring adequate healthcare services is not enforceable under Section 6(6)(C) of the Constitution. Dissatisfied, Falana appealed the decision in 2021.
In a unanimous verdict delivered on January 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the right to adequate medical care falls under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, making it non-justiciable.
The court acknowledged the poor state of Nigeria’s public hospitals and the resulting preventable deaths but maintained that the law must take its course.
The judgment further clarified that fundamental rights are those explicitly provided in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution or recognized under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It rejected Falana’s reliance on Indian case law, emphasizing that such precedents were not binding in Nigeria.
The court concluded that restricting public officials from seeking medical care abroad would infringe on their rights, stressing that economic, social, and cultural rights, including healthcare, are not constitutionally classified as fundamental rights.
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Reacting to the ruling, Falana criticized the court for failing to recognize the inequality in allowing public officials to receive medical care abroad while ordinary citizens are left to struggle in underfunded hospitals.
He vowed to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, arguing that the right to life is incomplete without adequate healthcare protection by the government.
