Court upholds Lagos Okada, motorcycle ban in Ikeja, Apapa, four LGAs
The Federal High Court, Ikoyi has affirmed the order of the Lagos State Government to restrict the use of motorcycles and Tricycles known as Okada and Keke Marwa in six local governments.
The presiding judge, Justice Liman dismissed the originating summons of the applicant one Olukoya Ogungbeje who had filed a fundamental human rights application for lacking merit.
Lagos State in January 2020 banned the operations of commercial motorcycles and tricycles in six local government areas in the state.
The affected LGs are the state capital Ikeja, Lagos Mainland, Lagos Island, Apapa, Surulere and Eti Osa. The ban came into effect on February 1.
The ban affects the local council development areas (LCDAs) under the LG. They are Apapa LG- Apapa Iganmu LCDA, Lagos Mainland LG – Yaba LCDA, Surulere LG- Itire-Ikate and Coker-Aguda LCDAs, Ikeja LG- Onigbongbo and Ojodu LCDAs, Eti-Osa LG- Ikoyi-Obalende and Iru/Victoria Island LCDAs, Lagos Island LG- Lagos Island East LCDA.
Ogungbeje in his suit challenging the restriction said the ban is an infringement of people’s fundamental human right because it hampers their means of livelihood.
But Justice Liman held that the applicant, who admitted being a car owner and not a motorcycle or tricycle operator, cannot complain of his right in any form being infringed upon.
He said the applicant failed to place material facts to support his deposition as well as provide evidence for the alleged death of a person at Iyana Ipaja.
“The restriction of Motorcycles, Tricycles within 6 Local Government Area and 9 Local Council Development Area in the State is not an infringement of Fundamental Human Rights,” Justice Liman ruled.
Lagos State attorney-general of Lagos State Moyosore Onigbanjo on Tuesday argued that the restriction was an executive order by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and asked the court to strike out the suit.
Lagos State Ministry of Justice spokesman Kayode Oyekanmi said the court in its judgment assumed jurisdiction in the case on the premise that both the Federal High Court and State High Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction over fundamental human right cases.
No comments yet