SIMBO OLORUNFEMI
That the law can have a mind of its own, not necessarily serving the public interest, is hardly in doubt.
Yesterday, wondering about how successful SERAP has been with these suits it routinely files, I did find a list of the cases and one which it claimed to have won is that instituted against the Lagos State Ministry of Health over its policy requiring patients registering for antenatal services in its hospitals to donate/provide a pint blood into the Hospital Blood Bank.
I grew up under the wings of a Mother who was a Nurse, which meant visits to the Hospital and familiarity with activities there. One of the things I got to know early enough was the challenge hospitals face with availability of blood as at when required. Such was it that we even had ‘Blood Contractors’ who hanged around the Hospital gate.
One was quite well known, as ‘Oso Eleje’. These Contractors sourced/delivered blood for a fee. The ‘unethical’ nature of their trade pales into insignificance given that they were able to save lives in some cases. Of course, non-availability of blood, sadly so too, saw to loss of lives in some cases.
So, when many years later, I got to know about the practice at LASUTH requiring families who come in for antenatal registration to provide blood before registration, which then assures that the pregnant woman then has a right to access the blood bank, should transfusion be required at child-birth, I felt that was a fair and sensible idea.
Imagine my shock on a visit to SERAP’s website to see that the Organisation had taken the Government to court on account of that policy and had, in fact, won.
The argument by SERAP, which it claimed it made on behalf of some residents of Lagos, is that the policy is a violation of Sections 33, 38 and 42 of the Constitution, which guarantee rights to life, as well as freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and right to equal protection. It equally cites the policy as a violation of International Convenient on Economic, Social and Culture Rights.
With due respect to the Court and its decision granting SERAP’s prayers for a discontinuance of the policy, I cannot see how this administrative policy meant to ease the process of making blood available during the process of childbirth is a violation of these rights/freedoms. Rather than this being a policy for ‘forceful and compulsory’ donation, I see this as simply another of the requirements that hospitals put out at the point of admission or treatment to make the process run smoothly. Which one is better – Having people provide blood way ahead of the time for childbirth or running helter-skelter to source for blood in case of emergency at the point of childbirth?
I do not see how the advocacy by SERAP, in this case, has served public interest.
That reminds me of the case instituted by Ebun Adegboruwa against the Lagos State Government over the policy that restricted movement of residents for some hours on Saturday, once a month for the purpose of environmental sanitation.
How that judgement which put a stop to the monthly sanitation exercise has served public interest and the people of Lagos is left for everyone to see.
Knowing that the law is only what the court says it is, knowing that there are always gaps which can be explored to unsettle policies that might even be in public interest, I often wonder at the narrow, legalistic arguments that some canvass to topple well-meaning policies. The essence of law should be for the advancement of public interest, not the reverse, as we have seen in some cases, including the ones cited above.