Lawyers insights as Lagos dismisses limitations on the VIO

Several Senior Advocates of Nigeria have expressed differing opinions regarding the stance taken by the Lagos State Government in relation to a recent VIO ruling by the Federal High Court.

This ruling, delivered on October 2, 2024, by Justice Evelyn Maha of the FHC Abuja, emerged from a fundamental rights enforcement suit initiated by a human rights activist and public interest attorney named Abubakar Marshal.

In her judgment, Justice Maha concurred with the applicant’s arguments, asserting that there exists no legal foundation for the Directorate of Vehicle Inspection Services (VIO) and its officials to engage in the practice of halting, confiscating, or imposing fines on vehicles, as well as penalizing motorists.

The learned judge meticulously examined the contentions put forth by the applicant and found them to be well-founded, thereby affirming the lack of legal basis for such actions by the VIO.

It is important to note that the ruling specifically pertains to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and its applicability to the VIO’s activities.

However, the Lagos State Government has taken a divergent position, asserting that the ruling does not extend to the state of Lagos.

This difference in interpretation has led to a divergence of opinions among Senior Advocates of Nigeria, with some supporting the government’s stance and others aligning with the judgment of the Federal High Court.

Given the significance of this matter, it is imperative that a thorough examination of the legal framework and relevant statutes be undertaken to ascertain the precise scope and applicability of the ruling.

This will enable a comprehensive understanding of the legal implications and potential consequences for both the VIO and motorists in Lagos.

The applicant, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023, has taken legal action against multiple parties, namely the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, the Director of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, Mr. Leo, the Area Commander of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services as of December 12, 2023, Onoja Solomon, and the Team Leader of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, Jabi Area command.

Additionally, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory is included as the 1st to 5th respondents, respectively.

However, it is important to note that the Lagos State Commissioner for Transportation, Oluwaseun Osiyemi, issued a statement on Tuesday to clarify the court’s decision.

The commissioner emphasized that the court’s ruling was based on the absence of a specific law in Abuja that empowers the Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) to carry out the actions in question.

It is worth mentioning that the situation in Lagos State differs significantly.

“It is important to note and be informed that in law, a court has limits of its territorial jurisdiction and in this case, the judgment is restricted to Abuja,” Osiyemi said.

The commissioner further explained that Lagos State operates under the Transport Sector Reform Law of 2018.

This law specifically outlines the duties and powers of the Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) within the state.

This distinction is crucial in understanding the context and legal framework surrounding the matter at hand.

He cited Part II, Sections 11-22 of the TSRL, which empowers the VIO to halt vehicles, levy fines, and uphold traffic laws.

The penalties for different traffic infractions specified in the legislation are fully applicable in Lagos.

“Therefore, the decision of the Federal High Court Abuja on VIO is inapplicable in Lagos State. Motorists in Lagos State are advised to continue to be law-abiding, uphold the TSRL, and respect the VIO,” he concluded.

In a telephone interview with Punch correspondent on Wednesday, Monday Ubani (SAN) expressed that the court had valid reasons for its ruling.

He noted that, “there may be some sense in what the man (commissioner) is saying.”

“If it is not one VIO that is operating all over the federation and operating in the Federal Capital Territory, then the man may be right to say that the judgment does not apply to the VIO in Lagos – which is different from that of Abuja. That’s what I think. Because they are not the same party. Judgment can only bind a party that is before the court. So if it is not the VIO of Lagos that is before the court, which is different from the one of Abuja, then he may be right. – Monday Ubani

“In other words, the VIO in Lagos was not a party. It was not sued. Were they served the court process? If they were not served and they never participated in the proceeding, meaning it was the VIO of the FCT and not the VIO of Lagos.”

Identifying other intricacies, Ubani said, “But again, what was the ratio? What was the decision of the court? Why did the court say what it said? Does Lagos State VIO also run foul of the law that made the Federal High Court make that decision?”

“If that VIO in Abuja is different from the VIO in Lagos – different management and different body that creates them – then it will be very difficult for you now to say that the judgment that was given against the VIO in Abuja will bind the VIO in Lagos because they are different entities and Lagos was never a party, was never represented.”

Wahab Shittu (SAN) mentioned in an interview that an entity cannot choose to disregard a court order that pertains to it unless it has filed an appeal against that ruling.

Shittu also said, “Well, I don’t have the facts. But no entity is encouraged to say it will not respect a court order that affects it. That’s the first thing. If an entity, which can be an individual, a corporate organisation or government is not satisfied with a particular ruling or judgment affecting it, the option open to it is to go and apply to set it aside or appeal against the ruling.

“Once the judgment has been delivered, everybody has the right and is obliged to respect the judgment. You can’t choose. All you can do is, if you disagree with the judgment, you can only use the machinery of the law to express your disagreement by way of appeal to set aside the judgment.”

Festus Ogun, a Lagos-based lawyer, in a post on X on Wednesday, said the Lagos commissioner’s argument was very “sound.”

“Save for the issue of ‘territorial jurisdiction,’ this is a very sound legal argument. All the Lagos Government has done is to distinguish the facts of the case from the prevailing circumstances in Lagos, which in my view is timely and legally sound,” Ogun wrote.