Published by Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a landmark ruling restraining the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) from imposing fines or penalties on motorists for breaching the Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance Act without a valid court order. Justice Hauwa Joseph Yilwa, in a judgment delivered on Friday, April 24, 2026, held that while both agencies have the statutory powers to enforce compliance with the insurance law, they lack the legal authority to sanction offenders by way of fines without recourse to the courts. The verdict, which has been hailed by human rights advocates as a major blow against extortion on Nigerian roads, was delivered in a suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/291/2025) filed by activist‑lawyer Deji Adeyanju against the Inspector‑General of Police, the Attorney‑General of the Federation and the FRSC.
According to the court, any imposition of fines or penalties on defaulting motorists must be backed by a court order. “The police and the FRSC, who are first and third respondents in the suit, although empowered to enforce the Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, however lack the powers to impose fines and penalties on any motorists in breach of the Act, without an order of the court,” Justice Yilwa ruled. The judgment drew a clear distinction between the power to enforce compliance and the power to mete out punishment. After the ruling, Adeyanju’s counsel, Marvin Omorogbe, confirmed that the court affirmed the authority of both agencies to ensure compliance with motor vehicle insurance laws but firmly ruled against the imposition of fines by either agency. “The court went further to restrain the IGP, the Police Force and all their officers, including the FRSC, from imposing fines on motor vehicle users or Nigerian citizens,” Omorogbe said.
Before delivering the final judgment, Justice Yilwa dismissed a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the police seeking to halt the proceedings. Counsel to the police, Andrew Victor, had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, claiming the force was not properly served with court processes. However, in a bench ruling, Justice Yilwa rejected the claim, insisting that records before the court clearly showed that all respondents were duly served. She listed multiple dates on which the processes were served on the police – April 3, May 21, November 14, November 17, January 28 and April 21 – and noted that the force was aware of the suit but failed to respond. “Having listened to submissions of all counsel, this court notes that the originating summons was served on all respondents,” she said. “The first respondent (police) is very much aware of the suit but refused to respond; this is viewed as an attempt to arrest this judgment and this court will not allow it.” She declared that the motion of preliminary objection was hereby refused, and proceeded to deliver judgment.
The suit was initiated through an originating summons brought pursuant to 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. Adeyanju had asked the court to determine whether the police could enforce third‑party insurance, impose fines without judicial backing, and whether such enforcement during routine stop‑and‑search operations violated constitutional rights. He also sought a declaration on whether the power to enforce third‑party motor insurance lies exclusively with the FRSC. In addition to declaratory reliefs, the applicant requested orders of perpetual injunction restraining the police from enforcing third‑party insurance and from imposing fines without judicial backing. He further urged the court to hold the Attorney‑General of the Federation accountable for providing legal guidance on the scope of police powers under the relevant statutes.
While the court upheld the authority of both the police and the FRSC to ensure compliance with motor vehicle insurance laws, it drew a sharp limit on the extent of that authority. “The police and the road safety may enforce compliance,” the court held, “but they outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners.” The ruling effectively declares that any enforcement action that results in a financial penalty must be taken to a court of law for an order before a fine can be levied. This means that motorists stopped for lacking valid third‑party insurance can no longer be forced to pay “on‑the‑spot” fines by either the police or the FRSC. Instead, any allegation of a breach must be prosecuted in a proper judicial proceeding, where the driver has the opportunity to be heard.
Reacting to the judgment, Adeyanju expressed satisfaction, noting that the central objective of the suit had been achieved. “The sole reason why we came to court is that we wanted the court to make a positive 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 argued that the ruling would curb what he described as a pattern of extortion by enforcement agencies and restore confidence among motorists. Adeyanju added that although the court declined to grant all the reliefs sought – particularly the request to strip the police entirely of enforcement powers – it nonetheless made a significant pronouncement on the limits of those powers. He urged Nigerians to take advantage of the judgment to assert their rights and seek legal remedies where necessary.
On the other hand, counsel to the defendants, Victor Okoye, said the judgment was only partly favourable to the police and signalled plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal. Okoye disclosed that the defence had raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, arguing that the originating summons was incompetent and unsuitable for resolving contentious issues. “We will be appealing the decision, particularly on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction, which we believe was not properly established,” Okoye said. The possibility of an appeal leaves the final outcome of the legal battle uncertain, but for now, the ruling stands as binding authority within the Abuja division of the Federal High Court.
The judgment has immediate practical implications for motorists across the country. Third‑party insurance is compulsory for all vehicle owners in Nigeria under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act. The existing law prescribes penalties for defaulters, including fines of up to N250,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The Police Act and the FRSC Act empower law enforcement agencies to demand proof of valid insurance during routine checks. However, the latest ruling clarifies that while those checks are permissible, the decision to impose a fine is a judicial function, not an executive one. Motorists who are now stopped and threatened with on‑the‑spot fines can cite the judgment and demand that any penalty be imposed only by a court. Rights groups have lauded the ruling as a step toward ending the often‑arbitrary financial demands made by security personnel on the highways.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments