Justice Hauwa Yilwa of the Federal High Court Abuja, has issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Nigerian Police Force, and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) from imposing or requesting fines from motorists over non-possession of third-party motor insurance.
Delivering judgment, Justice Yilwa, held that only a court of competent jurisdiction had the right to sanction errant motorists.
However, the court declined to declare that both the police and the FRSC lacked the statutory powers to enforce third-party motor vehicle insurance throughout the federation.
The judgment followed a suit lodged before the court by human rights lawyer Deji Adeyanju.
Aside from the Inspector General of Police and the FRSC, the Attorney-General of the Federation was also listed as a defendant in the matter.
The plaintiff, in the suit specifically prayed the court to determine “whether, by virtue of the provisions of section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, the first Respondent (IGP) and its officers had the powers to enforce third-party insurance.
“Whether, by virtue of the provisions of section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act 2003, the 1st Respondent and its officers acting under its control and instruction have the vires, authority and/or powers to unilaterally impose fines on vehicle owners alleged to be in breach of the Acts, without an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Whether, by the provisions of section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the 1st Respondent and its officers’ acts of indiscriminate stop-and-search on motor vehicle owners are not unlawful and a violation of the vehicle owners’ constitutional right to privacy and freedom of movement.
“Whether, by the provisions of section 10(4) of the Federal Road Safety Corps (Establishment) Act, 2007, the powers to enforce third-party motor insurance in Nigeria lie exclusively with the 3rd Respondent,” the plaintiff said.
Upon determination of the questions, the plaintiff, among other things, sought a declaration that, by virtue of section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, the NPF and their officers lack the powers to enforce third-party motor insurance in Nigeria.
“A declaration that the 2nd Respondent (AGF), as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, has the responsibility to guide the 1st Respondent on the extent of its powers under section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, and sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, officials, subordinates or any other persons acting under them, from further enforcing third-party motor insurance in Nigeria.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents, privies, officials, subordinates or any other persons acting under it, from imposing fines or requesting fines from motorists without a court order, in the guise of enforcing third-party motor insurance,” he added
Although the court granted the reliefs in part, it validated the powers of both the police and the FRSC to enforce the policy without imposing fines on motorists.
Meanwhile, before the judgment was delivered, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the police.
Counsel for the Force had contended that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Aside from challenging the competence of the suit on the premise that, owing to the contentious nature of issues raised by the plaintiff, it ought to have been commenced via a writ of summons, the police further noted that the IGP was wrongly listed as a defendant instead of the NPF.
However, in her ruling, Justice Yilwa held that the objection smacked of a deliberate attempt to arrest the scheduled judgment.
Consequently, she dismissed the objection and proceeded to deliver the court’s verdict.
Reacting to the judgment on Friday, the police, through their lawyer, said they would take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
Adeyanju, in a 24-paragraph affidavit he personally deposed to, told the court that he is a tax-paying citizen duly called to the Nigerian Bar.
He told the court that the police had held a press conference on January 11, 2025, during which they announced that officers of the Nigeria Police Force would begin enforcing third-party insurance starting from February 1, 2025.
“Following the 1st respondent’s announcement, the National Insurance Commission, on January 16, 2025, expressed its full backing for the enforcement of third-party insurance,” the plaintiff said.
He told the court that the police declared motorists without third-party insurance would pay as much as a ₦250,000 fine.
The plaintiff argued that allowing the police to enforce the action would not only wreak hardship on motorists but also amount to an act of illegality.
The FRSC did not oppose any of the reliefs the plaintiff sought in the suit.
Third-party insurance covers damage caused to other people by a driver or vehicle owner.
Channels news
