Court ruling didn’t exempt states – Group tells Lagos AG over VIO activities

The Campaign for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (CCHR), a non-governmental group, has strongly condemned the statement by the Lagos State Attorney General, Lawal Pedro (SAN), claiming that the recent Court of Appeal ruling barring Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) from impounding vehicles does not apply to Lagos State.

The group gave the reaction in a statement signed by Comrade Prince Toyin Raheem and Comrade Olutola Folorunsho, its Executive Secretary and Publicity Secretary respectively.

Recall that the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld a lower court judgment (originally delivered by Justice Evelyn Maha) which declared that VIOs lack the statutory power to stop, impound, or seize vehicles or impose fines.

The court ruled these actions violate the fundamental rights of Nigerians, including the presumption of innocence and the right to own property.

A permanent restraining order was issued against the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (VIO) to prevent further violations of these rights.

However, the Lagos Attorney General argued that the ruling is specific to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and is not of nationwide application because Lagos has its own Lagos State Transport Sector Reform Law.

He maintained that the Lagos State Vehicle Inspection Service (VIS) remains legally empowered to inspect vehicles and enforce traffic regulations within the state.

Reacting in its statement, the CCHR argued that the Lagos government’s stance is a “disobedience to court orders” that undermines the rule of law.

The group contend that since the judgment was based on fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution, it should apply nationwide regardless of state-specific statutes.

“We condemn the statement by Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro SAN, claiming the Court of Appeal Abuja judgment on VIO activities isn’t binding on Lagos. This is legally flawed.

“A Court of Appeal ruling applies nationwide; Pedro’s claim reflects poorly on his office and may confuse young lawyers.

“The Attorney General should not become what the Yorubas call, “Atannije”.

“Judgment of a Federal High court is binding nationwide, more so a nigher court, the court of appeal has affirmed it.

“The judgment didn’t exempt states. Pedro should have appealed to the Supreme Court or sought interpretation, not issuing confusing statements.

“VIO/VIS operations on Lagos roads are illegal; vehicle inspection, roadside harassment/extortion.

“Proper inspections require certified centers, not chaotic roadblocks prioritizing revenue over citizens.

Activities of VIO/VIS in Lagos and Ogun States on roads and indeed in any part of Nigeria is unlawful and a contempt of court.,” the group stated

Continuing, the CCHR demanded that the Lagos State government withdraw VIO from roads with immediate effect and that the state attorney general, Lawal Pedro, publicly apologize to Lagosians/Nigerians for confusion caused.

Failure to comply, the CCHR vowed that it will mobilize affected citizens for legal action.

“Nigeria is a democracy governed by rule of law. Governments don’t pick which judgments to obey lest we turn the country to a banana republic.

“All court rulings stand until overturned by a higher court,” it concluded.