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.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
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.
Okoye however acknowledged that the ruling affirmed the powers of both the police and the FRSC to stop and verify compliance with third-party insurance requirements, meaning the agencies’ enforcement function, as distinct from their sanctioning function, was upheld.
The ruling, if it stands, has immediate and practical implications for every motorist in Nigeria.
Police officers and FRSC officials can still stop vehicles and demand proof of valid third-party motor vehicle insurance. This enforcement power was affirmed by the court and remains lawful.
However, if a motorist does not have valid insurance, the officers cannot impose a fine, demand payment, seize the vehicle as leverage for payment, or otherwise sanction the motorist on the spot. They can only report the infraction and pursue it through the court system.
In practice, this means the roadside collection of fines for insurance infractions, which is one of the most common interactions between Nigerian motorists and law enforcement, has been declared unlawful by a Federal High Court. Officers who continue to impose such fines would be acting in violation of a court order.
The distinction also applies to the frequently encountered practice where FRSC officials set up checkpoints and demand immediate payment from motorists whose insurance papers are expired, missing, or deemed insufficient. Under the court’s ruling, the officials can identify the infraction but cannot collect payment.
The ruling addresses one of the most widespread and persistent sources of friction between Nigerian citizens and law enforcement agencies. Roadside fines for motor vehicle infractions, including insurance compliance, have long been criticised as a system that enriches individual officers rather than deterring actual violations.
The practice has been particularly burdensome for commercial vehicle operators, including bus drivers, taxi operators, and truck drivers, who face multiple checkpoints on every journey and are frequently required to make payments to various agencies at each stop.
Human rights organisations and transportation advocacy groups have documented cases where motorists with valid documentation were still fined, where fines were collected without receipts, where amounts demanded bore no relation to any statutory penalty, and where vehicles were impounded as leverage to extract higher payments.
The court’s ruling, by requiring that all sanctions for non-compliance be imposed through the court system, introduces a layer of judicial oversight that could curb these abuses, provided the ruling is implemented and enforced.
The judgment also has implications for the insurance industry. Third-party motor vehicle insurance is mandatory under Nigerian law, but compliance rates are notoriously low. Estimates suggest that a significant majority of vehicles on Nigerian roads operate without valid third-party insurance, a situation that leaves accident victims without recourse to compensation.
If roadside fines for non-compliance are no longer permissible, the question arises of how compliance will be enforced. The court’s ruling does not remove the legal obligation to maintain valid insurance. It merely requires that enforcement of penalties goes through the courts rather than being imposed at the roadside.
Whether the court system has the capacity to process potentially millions of insurance infraction cases, and whether the police and FRSC will actually refer cases to court rather than simply ignoring infractions they can no longer fine, remains to be seen.
The defendants’ announced intention to appeal means the ruling is not yet final. If the Court of Appeal overturns the judgment on procedural grounds, such as the competence of the originating summons or the proper parties to the suit, the substantive ruling on fining powers could be set aside without the appeal court even reaching the merits.
If the Court of Appeal upholds the judgment, it would establish a binding precedent across all Federal High Courts and provide a stronger legal foundation for motorists who resist roadside fines.
In the interim, the Federal High Court’s order restraining the IGP, the police, and the FRSC from imposing fines remains in force, meaning any fines imposed from this point forward would be in violation of a subsisting court order.
For Nigerian motorists who have endured decades of arbitrary roadside fines, the ruling represents a significant legal victory. Whether it translates into a practical change in their daily experience on Nigerian roads will depend on whether law enforcement agencies comply with the court’s order, or whether it becomes another judgment that exists on paper while the practices it prohibits continue unchecked.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
