The Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act, which prescribes penalties for road traffic offenders without recourse to courts of competent jurisdictions, raises significant legal and constitutional concerns about traffic laws and vehicle regulations in the country, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.
The provision in the Road Safety Act that allows penalties to be imposed on motorists without recourse to the court, raises constitutional and legal questions. While those in favour of the development argue that this provision streamlines enforcement processes, ensures quicker resolutions, and enhances road safety by promptly penalising offenders, those against it insist that it infringes on individual rights, ultimately violating the 1999 Constitution.
This debate becomes even more intriguing due to different judicial interpretations by the high and appeal courts, making the imprimatur of the apex court on the matter, a sine qua non.
Specifically, Part ii, Section 10 Subsection (4) and Section 28 subsection (2) of the FRSC (Establishment Act) 2007, and Regulation 143 of the Nigerian Roads Traffic Regulation, 2011 empower the FRSC to impose fines on erring motorists. But this, according to lawyers, contradicts Section 6 (1) of the Constitution, which vests all judicial powers to impose sanction on anyone in the courts.
However, some argue that traffic violations and fines are typically not considered criminal offenses in the same sense as serious crimes. Traffic violations, they insist, are often categorised as civil offences, or infractions rather than criminal offences. As such, the presumption of innocence and burden of proof may not apply in the same way as in criminal cases.
The argument is that in many other jurisdictions, traffic laws allow authorities such as law enforcement officers, or traffic agencies to issue fines or citations to motorists based on evidence such as traffic camera footage, eyewitness reports, or officer observations. These fines are usually imposed based on a preponderance of evidence rather than requiring the same level of proof as in criminal cases where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Amid the debates, a Federal High Court, in Abuja ruled that the FRSC lacks the authority to impose fines on motorists directly and must adhere to due process. This court decision, grounded in constitutional principles, emphasises that the actions of the FRSC constituted a usurpation of judicial powers exclusively vested in the courts.
The trial judge, John Tsoho, in his ruling, declared specific sections of the FRSC (Establishment Act) 2007, along with Regulation 143 of the Nigerian Roads Traffic Regulation, 2011, as null and void owing to their inconsistency with constitutional provisions.
He emphasised that while the FRSC is empowered to enforce traffic laws, the act of imposing fines, particularly through arrest, crosses into the realm of punishment, which is a judicial function.
The judge’s stance underscores the fact that sentencing and imposing fines are judicial actions that necessitate trials and convictions. As the FRSC lacks the authority to conduct trials and grant a fair hearing to the accused, its imposition of fines is deemed a usurpation of judicial powers.
Justice Tsoho’s decision noted that while the National Assembly can enact laws for good governance of the society, those laws must align with constitutional boundaries. Any legislation that exceeds these limits, he stated, is deemed unconstitutional and unenforceable. Therefore, the FRSC’s attempt to impose fines without judicial oversight is not constitutionally permissible. This decision highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights within the constitutional framework.
However, despite the previous legal challenges and rulings questioning the authority of the FRSC to impose fines and impound vehicles without judicial oversight, a decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, upheld the powers of the FRSC in a specific case involving Mr Michael Benson, a lawyer from Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.
Benson was arrested by FRSC operatives in 2017 for violations related to driver’s license, vehicle license, and tyre regulations during a patrol in Akwa Ibom State. His vehicle, a Toyota saloon car, was impounded, and he was fined by the FRSC.
Upon challenging FRSC’s authority and seeking enforcement of his fundamental human rights, Benson took the matter to the Akwa Ibom State High Court. The trial Judge, Aniekan Akpan, dismissed his application, affirming FRSC’s constitutional powers to impound vehicles and impose fines on erring motorists.
Unsatisfied with the lower court’s decision, Benson headed to the Court of Appeal, hoping to overturn the ruling. A three-man panel, consisting of justices R. C. Agbo, M. B. Barka, and B.B. Aliyu, upheld the Akwa Ibom High Court’s decision in favor of FRSC.
Justice Aliyu, reading the judgment on behalf of the panel, emphasised FRSC’s statutory powers to arrest and fine offenders within its legal frameworks. The Court of Appeal deemed the appeal incompetent and affirmed FRSC’s authority in the matter.
Additionally, the court dismissed Mr. Benson’s request for N10 million in damages and instead imposed a cost of N50,000 against him, further solidifying FRSC’s position in exercising its enforcement duties within the confines of the law.
Contributing to the debate, Emmanuel Ekwe, a lawyer, said that the section of the act that empowers the FRSC to penalise without recourse to the courts negates the principle of “you cannot be a judge in your case.”
The lawyer held that the principle of impartiality and fairness emphasises that individuals should not have the authority to make decisions or judgments about matters directly involving them, as it may lead to bias or conflict of interest. This principle, the lawyer said, is fundamental in ensuring justice, transparency, and integrity in various systems and processes.
An Abuja-based lawyer, Godwin Chigbo, said that the act of imposing fines and impounding vehicles is unconstitutional. According to him, to avoid the repercussions of that unconstitutional act, the authorities may include in its enabling Act, the choice between paying a fine or facing prosecution to allow the courts to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused person to impose fines.
For Okueyelegbe Maliki, the Act is unconstitutional whichever way one looks at it. This, he said, is because judicial powers are vested in the courts. “Only the courts have the powers to pronounce a person guilty to necessitate the imposition of a fine.
“The case of Adesanya V. President of The FRN is quite illustrative in this regard. The section material to this issue, which was enunciated in Adesanya’s case, is Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution,” he pointed out.
The lawyer insisted that the judicial powers vested by the foregoing provisions of the 1999 Constitution extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.
Juxtaposing this judicial powers expressly vested in the court by the Constitution with Section 1(3) of the same Constitution, which provides for its supremacy, the extent to which any other law (Road Safety Act) attempts to share this power will be unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
“The Constitution is very clear and specific on the separation of the powers between the arms of government to wit: the executive, legislative and the judiciary at both federal and state levels; thus the executive cannot exercise or usurp the powers of the judiciary and vice versa. To this extent, the section of the Road Safety Act that allows for imposition of fines without recourse to court is unconstitutional.
“To this end, I seem to agree with the submissions that Section 10 (4) of the FRSC Act does not confer judicial powers on it. I make bold to say that whichever rule of interpretation is used to interpret the above section of the Act, there is no way Sections 10 (4) and 28 (2) and indeed any provision of the Act confer judicial powers on FRSC. The Act recognizes the power of the court to try and convict a traffic offender,” he argued.
However, Paul Mgbeoma, a lawyer explained that judgments of the Court of Appeal suggest that once you agree to pay the fine, you have waived your right to complain that the fine is unconstitutional.
He cited the cases of Malachy C. Nwaekpe v. FRSC (2022) LPELR- 56959 (CA) and Olookan & Anor. v. FRSC & Ors. (2019) LPELR- 47971 (CA) to buttress his point.
Owing to the conflicting decisions of the lower courts and the discordant tunes from lawyers over the matter, it has become imperative for the Supreme Court to wade in and stamp its imprimatur on the issue to put it to rest.
