A Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps cannot impose fines on motorists over third-party motor vehicle insurance without a court order, drawing a clear legal distinction between the power to enforce compliance and the power to sanction offenders, in a landmark judgment that could affect the daily experience of millions of Nigerian motorists who routinely face roadside fines from law enforcement agencies.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa delivered the judgment in a suit filed by activist and lawyer Deji Adeyanju against the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the FRSC, in which the court held that while the police and the FRSC have the power to check whether motorists comply with third-party insurance requirements, they “outrightly lack the powers to impose fines” without recourse to the courts.
The court went further to restrain the IGP, the police force and all their officers, as well as the FRSC, from imposing fines on motor vehicle users or Nigerian citizens in relation to third-party insurance compliance, a directive that, if upheld on any potential appeal, would fundamentally alter how insurance enforcement operates on Nigerian roads.
At the heart of Justice Yilwa’s ruling is a distinction between two separate legal powers: the power to enforce compliance with the law, and the power to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
The court held that both the police and the FRSC possess the first power. They can lawfully stop motorists, request proof of valid third-party motor vehicle insurance, and verify whether the documentation presented is genuine and current. This enforcement function is part of their statutory mandate to ensure road safety and compliance with motor vehicle regulations.
However, the court held that neither agency possesses the second power. When they discover that a motorist does not have valid third-party insurance, they cannot impose a fine, collect money, or otherwise penalise the motorist on the spot. Instead, the matter must be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, which alone has the authority to determine guilt and impose appropriate sanctions.
The distinction, while legally straightforward, has enormous practical implications. For decades, Nigerian motorists have been subjected to roadside fines by police officers and FRSC officials who demand payment for various insurance and documentation infractions. The practice has been widely criticised as arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently used as a pretext for extortion rather than genuine law enforcement.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/291/2025, was initiated by Adeyanju through an originating summons invoking provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, the Insurance Act, and the FRSC (Establishment) Act.
Adeyanju had asked the court to determine three specific questions: whether the police could enforce third-party insurance requirements, whether they could impose fines for non-compliance, and whether such enforcement infringes on the constitutional rights of motorists.
His counsel, Marvin Omorogbe, confirmed after the ruling that the court answered these questions in a manner favourable to the applicant.
“The police and the road safety may enforce compliance but outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners,” Omorogbe stated.
“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,” he added.
Speaking to journalists, Adeyanju described the judgment as achieving exactly what the suit had sought.
“The sole reason why we came to court is because 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,” Adeyanju stated.
He added that the ruling would help curb what he described as arbitrary fines routinely imposed on motorists, a practice that affects millions of Nigerians daily and that has long been a source of public frustration with law enforcement agencies.
Victor Okoye, counsel to the defendants, indicated that the judgment was only partly favourable and announced plans to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
Okoye raised several objections to the proceedings. He argued that the suit was incompetent and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, contending that the matter ought not to have been commenced by originating summons.
“We envisage that we will likely challenge the proceedings at the court of appeal to determine if the court ought to have determined a case where the originating summons is incompetent,” Okoye stated.
He also maintained that the suit was improperly constituted, noting that the IGP was sued in his personal capacity rather than the Nigeria Police Force as a legal entity, a distinction that could have jurisdictional implications.
Despite these objections, Justice Yilwa proceeded to deliver judgment, evidently satisfied that the court had jurisdiction and that the originating summons was competent.