Court of Appeal Restrains VIO of Harassment to Stop, Impound or Issue Fines to Vehicles
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has delivered a landmark judgment stripping the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (DRTS), commonly known as the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO), of its powers to stop motorists, impound vehicles, or impose fines, declaring that the agency has no legal authority to carry out such enforcement activities.
In a unanimous ruling delivered Thursday, a three-member panel of justices dismissed the VIO’s appeal and affirmed the Federal High Court’s October 16, 2024, judgment that had previously declared the agency’s enforcement operations unlawful.
Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, who authored and delivered the lead judgment, firmly stated that VIO officers possess no statutory mandate under Nigerian law to penalise, arrest, or harass motorists under any circumstances. The appellate decision represents a significant judicial curtailment of what many Nigerians have long considered arbitrary enforcement practices by VIO officials.
The legal battle began when public interest lawyer Abubakar Marshal filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit following an incident in December 2023. Marshal testified that VIO officials forcibly seized his vehicle in the Jabi District of Abuja without providing lawful justification or following due process.
His case challenged the constitutional and legal basis for the VIO’s widespread practice of stopping vehicles, conducting roadside inspections, and impounding automobiles across the Federal Capital Territory.
In her groundbreaking judgment, Justice Nkeonye Maha of the Federal High Court ruled comprehensively that the VIO lacks constitutional authority to impound vehicles or impose fines on motorists. She characterised the agency’s enforcement actions as both “unlawful and oppressive,” establishing important legal precedent.
The Federal High Court determined that the VIO’s conduct violated multiple fundamental rights guaranteed to Marshal under Nigeria’s constitution and international human rights obligations. Specifically, the court found violations of his rights to property, freedom of movement, fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence as protected under Sections 6, 36, 41, and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Additionally, Justice Maha ruled that the VIO’s actions breached Articles 2, 7, 12, and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory.
Compensation Awarded
While Marshal sought N500 million in damages and demanded a public apology from the respondents for the violation of his constitutional rights, the Federal High Court awarded him N2.5 million as compensation for the unlawful seizure of his vehicle and the infringement of his fundamental rights.
The respondents named in the fundamental rights suit included the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (DRTS) itself, the Director of the agency, the then-serving Abuja Area Commander, team leader Solomon Onoja, who was directly involved in the vehicle seizure, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, under whose administrative oversight the VIO operates.
The VIO and other respondents appealed the Federal High Court’s decision, seeking to overturn the ruling and restore their enforcement powers. However, the Court of Appeal firmly dismissed their appeal on Thursday, reinforcing clear judicial limits on what enforcement powers the VIO may legally exercise within the Federal Capital Territory.
This appellate court judgment has far-reaching implications for millions of Nigerian motorists who have experienced VIO stops, vehicle impoundments, and on-the-spot fines. The decision clarifies that such practices lack legal foundation and constitute violations of constitutional rights.
The ruling raises important questions about how traffic enforcement and vehicle compliance will be managed in Abuja and potentially across Nigeria, and whether legislative action will be required to establish a proper legal framework for such activities or designate alternative agencies with appropriate statutory authority.
Legal experts suggest this judgment may inspire similar challenges in other jurisdictions and could fundamentally reshape traffic enforcement practices throughout the country.
