The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, which restrained the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, popularly known as the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO), from stopping, impounding, or confiscating vehicles on Nigerian roads. The appellate court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the VIO lacks the legal mandate to impose fines on motorists.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi declared that the appeal filed by the VIO was “without merit” and dismissed all grounds raised by the agency. The court further ordered the VIO to pay ₦1 million in damages to the respondent, human rights activist and public interest lawyer Abubakar Marsh, who had initiated the fundamental rights enforcement suit.
This ruling reinforces the earlier decision by Justice Evelyn Maha of the Federal High Court, who in October 2024 held that the VIO lacked the necessary legal backing to stop vehicles, impound them, or impose fines on drivers.
The VIO is barred from stopping, impounding, or confiscating vehicles on public roads. The appellate court confirmed that the agency cannot impose fines without proper legislative backing.
The VIO was ordered to pay ₦1 million in costs to the respondent. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding motorists’ rights against unlawful enforcement practices.
Reacting to the judgment, Abubakar Marsh hailed the ruling as a victory for the rule of law and motorists across Nigeria. He emphasized that traffic regulation must be carried out within the ambit of the law and that arbitrary enforcement undermines citizens’ rights.
This decision sets a precedent for traffic enforcement in Nigeria, clarifying that only agencies with proper legislative authority may stop vehicles or impose penalties. It also strengthens public confidence in the judiciary’s commitment to protecting citizens against unlawful practices.
Motorists are encouraged to remain law-abiding and adhere to traffic regulations enforced by legally empowered agencies, while the ruling serves as a reminder to regulatory bodies to operate strictly within the boundaries of the law.