The Court of Appeal in Lagos has rejected the request by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, to impose a ban on public officers seeking medical treatment abroad.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Polycarp Terna Kwahar, speaking on behalf of the three-judge panel, stated that preventing Nigerians, including public officers, from seeking medical attention outside the country would infringe on their fundamental rights. He further noted that such a decision would be excessively harsh. The other justices, Justice Mohammed Mustapha and Justice Paul Bassi, concurred with the ruling and upheld the Federal High Court’s decision from January 10, 2021.
In 2010, Falana had taken the Federal Government to court, seeking a declaration that Nigerians are entitled to the best possible physical and mental health, as guaranteed by law. He argued that the government’s failure to repair and equip public hospitals violated the rights of citizens to access adequate healthcare. Falana also sought an order to compel the government to improve public hospitals and to prevent public officials from seeking medical treatment abroad at public expense.
The Federal High Court, however, dismissed the suit, stating that the provision of adequate healthcare facilities was “non-justiciable” under the constitution, as outlined in Section 6(6)(C).
In 2021, dissatisfied with the ruling, Falana appealed. On January 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with the trial court’s decision, affirming that the right to adequate healthcare falls under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, which are non-justiciable. The court acknowledged Falana’s concerns about the inadequacy of public hospitals in Nigeria, but emphasized that despite these issues, the law must be respected.
The Court also ruled that the right to adequate medical care is not a fundamental right under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. It further clarified that merely including a right in the constitution does not automatically make it a fundamental right, citing foreign cases as unpersuasive in Nigerian jurisprudence.
The court concluded that granting the request would be an infringement on the fundamental rights of Nigerians and would be inconsistent with legal precedents. Therefore, it dismissed Falana’s appeal, affirming the lower court’s ruling.
In response, Falana criticized the judgment, arguing that it was discriminatory to allow public officers to seek treatment abroad while many Nigerians suffer from ill-equipped hospitals. He expressed his intention to challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court, asserting that the right to life and health should be guaranteed for all citizens equally.
