Menu

Lagos street begging bill and the limits of prohibition 15 Oct 2026

The Lagos State House of Assembly is considering the Street Begging and Street Urchins (Prohibition, Prevention and Rehabilitation) Bill 2026. The proposed law would prohibit begging in public places across Lagos, including motor parks, traffic intersections, pedestrian bridges, markets and bus stops. Enforcement would escalate from a formal warning for a first offence to fines of up to N200,000 and imprisonment of up to two years for repeat offenders.

The Bill also extends liability to those who procure, aid or facilitate begging, including parents or guardians who use children to solicit alms. Following a public hearing in September 2026, the Bill remains under legislative consideration.

The concern underpinning the legislation is legitimate. Street begging has become increasingly visible in Lagos, raising difficult questions about child exploitation, public safety, urban management and the welfare of vulnerable people. A city of more than 20 million people cannot ignore these realities.

The important question, however, is not whether Lagos should act. It is whether prohibition, as proposed, can achieve the social outcomes policymakers seek. That distinction matters because laws can prohibit conduct, but they cannot, by themselves, eliminate the conditions that produce it. If policymakers focus only on the visible manifestation of deprivation, they risk treating a symptom while leaving its causes untouched.

Supporters of the Bill will understandably argue that the government has a responsibility to regulate public spaces and protect residents from conduct that disrupts public order. They are not wrong. Organised begging syndicates, the exploitation of children, aggressive solicitation and conduct that threatens public safety are all legitimate subjects for regulation. No serious public policy argument suggests otherwise. The real issue is whether criminal law should be the principal response to ordinary destitution.

Experiences in other jurisdictions offer reasons for caution. Cities around the world have experimented with measures ranging from anti-begging by-laws and exclusion zones to arrests, fines and police sweeps. In many cases, visible begging declined temporarily in targeted areas but reappeared elsewhere. The underlying population of people experiencing poverty and vulnerability often remained largely unchanged.

This is not surprising. Begging is rarely the result of a single cause. Research consistently links it to a combination of poverty, unemployment, family breakdown, displacement, disability, inadequate social protection and limited access to education. In Nigeria, these factors are further complicated by regional inequalities, internal migration and the erosion of traditional support structures that once absorbed vulnerable populations.

The situation is particularly evident in Lagos, where the state serves as the country's principal economic destination. The street therefore becomes the point at which broader social and economic failures become visible.

UNICEF estimates that Nigeria has more than 18 million out-of-school children. Many face heightened risks of exploitation, poverty and social exclusion. While most do not become street beggars, the link between educational exclusion and street vulnerability is well established. The consequence is a pipeline that continually reproduces the conditions lawmakers are seeking to address.

This matters because how a problem is defined determines the policy tools used to address it. If begging is understood primarily as misconduct, criminal sanctions become the natural response. But if it is understood as the result of multiple forms of deprivation, enforcement becomes only one component of a broader strategy.

To its credit, the Bill appears to recognise this complexity. Its rehabilitation provisions include vocational training, literacy education, counselling and life-skills development delivered through designated rehabilitation centres. This reflects an implicit acknowledgement that street begging is not merely a law-enforcement problem. Yet the rehabilitation framework remains one of the Bill's weakest features.

The proposed provisions appear more aspirational than operational. The Bill offers limited clarity on funding arrangements, minimum service standards, capacity requirements, monitoring mechanisms, or measurable outcomes. Without these safeguards, rehabilitation risks becoming an ancillary concept rather than a meaningful institutional response. This concern is even more significant given the diversity of people who may fall within the Bill's scope.

Not all forms of street begging are the same. An adult soliciting assistance due to extreme poverty is not in the same category as an organised network that traffics or coerces children into begging. Nor should a person with a disability who lacks access to employment and social support necessarily be treated the same way as an individual engaged in persistent intimidation or aggressive solicitation.

The distinctions are important because effective lawmaking depends on accurate classification. When the law collapses fundamentally different circumstances into a single prohibited category, enforcement becomes both more difficult and less just. A more effective framework would clearly differentiate between exploitation, coercion, public-order concerns and survival-driven behaviour, with legal consequences calibrated to the harm being addressed.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that Lagos is grappling with a problem whose roots extend well beyond its physical boundaries. While the state demonstrates capacity to implement complex urban policies, no state government can reasonably be expected to resolve, on its own, the consequences of a national poverty crisis. The movement of vulnerable people across state lines, uneven access to education and social services, internal displacement and chronic economic insecurity are national realities that inevitably converge in Lagos.

For this reason, street begging should not be viewed solely as a Lagos problem. It is more accurately a national problem that is particularly visible in Lagos. Any durable solution will therefore require coordination among the Federal Government, state governments and local institutions. Lagos can regulate public spaces within its jurisdiction, but it cannot, by legislation alone, eliminate the conditions that continually drive vulnerable people into those spaces.

Three structural issues warrant particular attention. The first is the limited reach of social protection. Nigeria's social welfare architecture remains inadequate relative to the scale of deprivation facing many households. Lagos bears a disproportionate share of the resulting pressure because of its role as an economic hub. The demand for housing, healthcare, education and social assistance extends far beyond residents of the state.

A law that criminalises the most visible consequence of these gaps, without addressing the gaps themselves, risks becoming a perpetual enforcement exercise rather than a lasting solution.

The second issue is educational exclusion. Children on the streets are overwhelmingly those outside formal education. Some are displaced. Some come from families facing severe economic hardship. Others fall through institutional cracks that should have been addressed long before they reached the streets.

Improving school access, retention and support for vulnerable families may not deliver the immediate visibility of a prohibition regime, but it is likely to yield more durable outcomes at a lower long-term social cost.

The third issue concerns disability and economic vulnerability. For many people with disabilities, particularly those excluded from formal employment and lacking adequate social support, begging may be less a choice than a survival mechanism. Criminalising the conduct without expanding pathways to employment, social assistance or income support does little to address the conditions driving it.

But none of this argues against the Bill as a whole. The provisions targeting those who exploit children, operate coercive begging networks, or engage in conduct that genuinely threatens public safety are both defensible and necessary. The government has a clear obligation to intervene where vulnerable people are being abused or where public spaces become unsafe.

What deserves greater scrutiny are the provisions that risk treating poverty itself as a criminal offence. Imprisoning a person for repeated begging may remove that individual from public view. It does not create employment, provide housing, expand access to education or strengthen social protection. Indeed, it may further entrench vulnerability by imposing the stigma and consequences associated with criminal sanctions.

The Nigerian Constitution recognises the welfare and security of the people as a fundamental purpose of government. While that constitutional commitment does not, by itself, resolve the practical challenges facing policymakers, it provides an important normative guide for legislation affecting society's most vulnerable members.

The challenge before Lagos is therefore greater than whether begging should disappear from its streets. It is whether the law will focus primarily on those visible in public spaces or on the social conditions that brought them there. Legislation can suppress a symptom. Sustainable public policy must address the cause.

Funmilayo Odude is a Partner at Commercial and Energy Law Practice (CANDELP).