The judge held that while both the police and the FRSC retain powers to enforce compliance with third-party motor insurance, they lack the legal authority to impose fines without a court order.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday restrained the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) from imposing fines on motorists over third-party motor vehicle insurance.
She held that while both the police and the FRSC retain powers to enforce compliance with third-party motor insurance, they lack the legal authority to impose fines without a court order.
The suit was filed by activist lawyer Deji Adeyanju against the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, and the FRSC.
He brought the suit under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, and provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007.
Mr Adeyanju asked the court to determine four issues: whether the police have powers to enforce third-party insurance, whether they can impose fines on alleged offenders, whether routine stop-and-search operations breach constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of movement.
He sought a declaration on whether the power to enforce third-party motor insurance lies solely with the FRSC.
The applicant requested orders of perpetual injunction restraining the police from enforcing third-party insurance and from imposing fines without court backing.
He also urged the court to hold the Attorney-General of the Federation responsible for providing legal guidance on the scope of police powers under the relevant laws.
Delivering the judgement, the court affirmed the powers of both agencies to ensure compliance with motor vehicle insurance laws but ruled against the imposition of fines by either body, lawyer to the applicant, Marvin Omorogbe, said while speaking with journalists.
“The police and the road safety may enforce compliance but outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners,” the court held, according to Mr Omorogbe.
“The court also restrained the IGP, the Police Force and all their officers, including the FRSC, from imposing fines on motor vehicle users or Nigerians.”
Reacting to the judgement, Mr Adeyanju expressed satisfaction. He said the central objective of the suit had been achieved.
“The sole reason we came to court was to obtain a declaration that the police and the road safety do not have the right to impose fines on any Nigerian over motor vehicle insurance. And we have succeeded,” he said.
He said the ruling would curb what he described as a pattern of extortion by enforcement agencies and restore confidence among motorists.
Mr Adeyanju added that although the court declined to grant all the reliefs sought, especially the request to remove the police’s enforcement powers, it made a significant pronouncement on the limits of those powers.
He also urged Nigerians to rely on the judgment to assert their rights and seek legal remedies where necessary.
On the other hand, lawyer to the defendants, Victor Okoye, said the judgement was only partly favourable to the police and indicated plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.
Mr Okoye said the defence raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit. He argued that the suit was incompetent and unsuitable for resolving contentious issues.
He relied on appellate decisions to stress that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be determined before substantive issues.
He said the court proceeded to deliver judgement despite the objection.
“We will likely challenge the proceedings at the Court of Appeal to determine whether the court should have decided a case commenced by an incompetent originating summons,” Mr Okoye said.
He also argued that the suit was improperly constituted because the Inspector-General of Police was named instead of the Nigeria Police Force as a corporate entity.
He maintained that several issues raised by the applicant were contentious and should not have been initiated by originating summons, which is reserved for non-contentious matters involving interpretation of law.
However, he acknowledged that the judgment affirmed the concurrent powers of the police and the FRSC to stop, search and verify compliance with third-party insurance requirements.
The NPF had launched a nationwide enforcement of third-party motor vehicle insurance in early February, after a public announcement directing motorists to comply with the law.
The police across states said the exercise aimed to enforce existing provisions that make third-party insurance compulsory for vehicle owners.
The enforcement followed repeated warnings and public notices urging motorists to obtain valid insurance or face sanctions.
However, the exercise drew criticism from motorists and civil society groups, who complained about poor awareness and alleged harassment during stop-and-search operations.
In some cases, enforcement reportedly led to confrontations between officers and motorists, especially over fines and document checks.
