The judgment of the Court of Appeal restricting the functions of the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO) strikes at the heart of one of Nigeria’s most persistent traffic regulation crises. The real lesson is the need to ensure that traffic regulators, in whatever guise, do not overstep their bounds while enforcing traffic laws.
In particular, officers charged with enforcing road safety practices should not constitute themselves as roadside oppressors. Besides, the court decision calls for reform of traffic regulations to streamline the functions of agencies and prevent duplication of roles.
The Appeal Court, in its judgment, barred the VIO from stopping motorists on the road, impounding or confiscating vehicles, and imposing fines on citizens. In a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the court, sitting in Abuja, affirmed the October 2, 2024 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The case that produced this landmark ruling began in 2023, when a legal practitioner and public interest lawyer, Mr Abubakar Marshall, approached the Federal High Court to challenge what he described as the unlawful seizure of his Honda car by VIO officials in the Jabi District of Abuja. Marshall contended that his vehicle was forcefully impounded on December 12, 2023, without any lawful justification or opportunity for him to be heard by a court of competent jurisdiction. He argued that the action violated his constitutional rights to freedom of movement, presumption of innocence, and fair hearing, as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
In a decisive judgment delivered on October 2, 2024, Justice Nkeonye Evelyn Maha of the Federal High Court, Abuja, held that there is no law—statutory or otherwise—that empowers the VIO to stop, impound, confiscate, or seize vehicles on the road, or to impose fines on motorists. The court further found that the VIO and its officials, operating under the supervision of the Federal Capital Territory Administration, had acted outside the law. Consequently, Justice Maha granted all the reliefs sought by Marshall and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the VIO and its agents from further violating the fundamental rights of Nigerians.
Dissatisfied with the court decision, the VIO, alongside other officials and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, appealed the decision. That appeal has now been comprehensively dismissed.
Delivering the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi held unequivocally that the VIO lacks any legal authority to impound or confiscate vehicles or to impose fines on motorists. Such conduct, the court ruled, amounts to a clear breach of the rights to fair hearing, freedom of movement, and presumption of innocence. The appellate court not only affirmed the Federal High Court’s findings but also awarded an additional cost of N1 million against the appellants, on top of the N2.5 million earlier awarded by the Federal High Court, Abuja, in favour of the respondent.
The Court of Appeal judgment is courageous and firmly anchored in constitutionalism. It sends a powerful message that enforcement agencies must operate within the bounds of the law and that fundamental rights are not privileges to be dispensed or withdrawn at the whim of uniformed officials.
The Lagos State Government had, in response to the judgment, claimed that the Federal High Court judgment delivered in Abuja does not apply in Lagos. This claim is doubtful partly because, under Sections 249 and 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is a single, indivisible court with jurisdiction across the Federation. Its divisions are administrative conveniences, not separate courts. A judgment delivered in Abuja binds authorities and persons throughout Nigeria. The same principle applies to the Court of Appeal under Sections 237 and 287(2) of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal is one national court, and its decisions are binding across all states, including Lagos.
Beyond the restrictions, this judgment exposes the deeper rot in the operations of traffic agencies, particularly the VIO. For years, the agency has been cited in cases of alleged harassment, intimidation, and extortion of motorists. There have been allegations of reckless inspection practices, physical assaults, and unlawful seizures of vehicles. Public memory still recalls incidents in which vehicles allegedly caught fire while in VIO custody, including the widely reported cases involving a painter’s car years ago and the more recent burning of a vehicle impounded over a cracked windscreen.
More importantly, the VIO’s operations also overlap confusingly with those of the Federal Road Safety Corps and state traffic agencies, creating jurisdictional chaos and encouraging abuse. Notably, former Lagos State Governor, Akinwunmi Ambode, once ordered the withdrawal of VIO officials from Lagos roads—a decision widely welcomed by the public.
When enforcement officers prioritise extortion over safety, they undermine the very purpose of regulation. Uniforms should symbolise service and discipline, not unchecked power. Unfortunately, as borne out of the experiences of many motorists in the country, enforcement officers too often become tools of oppression, wielded against ordinary citizens struggling to go about their daily lives.
The time has therefore come for decisive action. In light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, state governments across the country should, in line with the Court of Appeal judgment, check the excesses of their state VIOs on road enforcement duties. Traffic management and safety should be entrusted only to properly trained and legally empowered agencies. Any officer—whether a traffic warden, police officer, or soldier—found to have abused his authority should be sanctioned.
No doubt, many motorists in the country need to be checked from engaging in dangerous or reckless driving habits, many of which have occasioned death and injury, often to innocent people. Indeed, unsafe driving practices could have been more pronounced had VIOs and other traffic law enforcers been scarce or absent on the roads.
Nevertheless, the judgment offers Nigeria an opportunity to reclaim its roads from arbitrariness and fear. It is a call to end the dictatorship of traffic regulators and to reaffirm that no agency is above the law. Citizens deserve to move freely, without harassment, in a country governed by the rule of law—not by the whims and caprice of the VIO and roadside abusers.
