VIO powers: What Appeal Court ruling means for motorists

The powers of Vehicle Inspection Officers to stop, impound, confiscate, or fine motorists remain a subject of controversy across Nigeria despite a Court of Appeal ruling that affirmed a Federal High Court judgment against the Directorate of Road Traffic Services in the Federal Capital Territory.

The debate has been fuelled by differing interpretations of court judgments, varying state enforcement practices and questions over the legal basis for roadside vehicle inspections.

Across several states, including Lagos, Oyo, Ogun and Rivers, officials of the Vehicle Inspection Service and other traffic enforcement agencies routinely stop vehicles for offences such as expired vehicle particulars, defective lights, worn tyres, tinted windows and alleged roadworthiness violations.

In many cases, affected vehicles are impounded and taken to government facilities pending compliance with regulatory requirements or payment of prescribed penalties.

The Vehicle Inspection Service is a state government agency responsible for ensuring that vehicles operating on public roads meet prescribed safety standards.

Its functions include conducting vehicle inspections, issuing roadworthiness certificates, testing drivers, issuing learner’s permits and certifying driving schools.

The agency also inspects vehicles involved in crashes to determine possible mechanical causes and promotes road safety through routine inspections and compliance monitoring.

However, the extent of its enforcement powers, particularly the authority exercised by Vehicle Inspection Officers to stop vehicles on public roads, impound them and impose penalties, has become the subject of legal disputes.

Many motorists often confuse the roles of the VIS and the Federal Road Safety Corps because both agencies operate within the road transport sector and are frequently seen carrying out roadside checks.

While the FRSC is a federal agency responsible for road safety administration, traffic regulation and enforcement of road traffic laws nationwide, the VIS primarily focuses on vehicle inspection, certification of roadworthiness and related regulatory functions at the state level.

The confusion is further compounded by limited public awareness and overlapping enforcement activities, especially where both agencies conduct compliance operations on highways and major roads.

The controversy intensified in October 2024 when a Federal High Court in Abuja restrained the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, popularly known as the VIO in the Federal Capital Territory, from stopping, impounding or confiscating vehicles and imposing fines on motorists.

The order followed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by human rights lawyer, Abubakar Marshal of Falana and Falana Chambers, against the Director of Road Transport, the Area Commander and Team Leader of Jabi, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.

In the judgment, Justice Evelyn Maha held that the respondents lacked the legal authority to stop, seize or confiscate vehicles and impose fines on motorists. The court ruled that such actions violated citizens’ constitutional rights.

The decision reignited nationwide debate over the powers of vehicle inspection and traffic enforcement agencies and whether vehicles could lawfully be seized without judicial authorisation.

The respondents subsequently appealed the judgment. However, on December 4, 2025, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Despite the appellate court ruling, questions remain over its scope and applicability outside the Federal Capital Territory.

Legal practitioners note that while the judgment is binding on the parties involved and serves as judicial precedent, some states maintain that their vehicle inspection agencies derive enforcement powers from state traffic and transportation laws.

State governments that hold this view argue that the Abuja judgment does not automatically invalidate provisions of their respective traffic laws unless such provisions are specifically challenged and set aside by competent courts.

Others, however, contend that regardless of the source of such powers, enforcement actions must comply with constitutional safeguards relating to property rights, fair hearing and due process.

As a result, implementation of the ruling has varied across the country.

In the Federal Capital Territory, officials of the DRTS, popularly known as the VIO, have largely refrained from roadside vehicle impoundment in compliance with the court order.

In Lagos, however, the state government has maintained that the judgment does not affect the operations of its Vehicle Inspection Service, which continues to carry out roadside enforcement under the state’s transportation laws.

The differing interpretations have left many motorists uncertain about the powers of vehicle inspection agencies and whether roadside seizures and fines remain lawful in their respective states.

The Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN), has maintained that the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, does not affect the operations of the Lagos State Vehicle Inspection Service.

Pedro, in a statement, said the state government had observed what it described as a misrepresentation of the appellate court’s judgment, which affirmed an earlier ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja concerning the powers of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services in the Federal Capital Territory.

According to him, both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal based their decisions on the absence of statutory powers authorising the respondents in the case to stop, impound or confiscate vehicles and impose fines on motorists within the FCT.

“It is important to understand that the judge of the Federal High Court and the justices of the Court of Appeal premised their decisions on the absence of statutory power conferred on the respondents to stop, impound or confiscate vehicles and/or impose fines on motorists on roads in the FCT, Abuja.

“The judge therefore issued an order restraining the VIO from impounding or confiscating vehicles belonging to motorists and/or imposing fines on drivers. The judgment, though binding, is not of general application or nationwide effect. It binds only the parties to the suit and jurisdictions where no law grants such powers. Vehicle inspection and traffic management fall within matters that state governments can legislate upon,” Pedro said.

The interpretation has, however, generated debate among legal practitioners and motorists over the scope of the appellate court’s decision and its implications for vehicle inspection agencies operating in other states.

Supporters of stricter vehicle inspection enforcement argue that Nigeria cannot afford weak regulatory oversight, given the growing number of poorly maintained vehicles on public roads.

They contend that many commercial and private vehicles operate without proper maintenance, posing risks to passengers and other road users.

According to them, allowing visibly defective vehicles to remain in operation could worsen accident rates and undermine road safety efforts.

An official of the Federal Road Safety Corps, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to comment on the matter, told our correspondent that vehicle inspection agencies play a significant role in maintaining vehicle safety standards.

According to him, officials of the agencies are often invited to inspect vehicles involved in road crashes to determine whether mechanical defects or technical failures contributed to the incidents.

The official noted that although the responsibilities of vehicle inspection agencies and the FRSC sometimes intersect, the two perform distinct functions.

“Creating a safe motoring environment requires the involvement of several agencies. Whenever crashes occur, investigations often focus on the condition of the vehicles involved. That is why vehicle inspectors are invited to examine such vehicles and determine whether mechanical failures contributed to the crashes.

“Their role is different from that of the FRSC. While the FRSC is responsible for road safety administration, traffic management and accident prevention, vehicle inspection agencies focus on the condition and roadworthiness of vehicles operating on public roads,” the official said.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Paul Ananaba, said court orders remain binding on the parties involved once they are issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

He stressed that neither individuals nor government institutions have the discretion to disregard judicial decisions.

“No one should act in disobedience to court orders, and no institution has the right to pick and choose which orders to obey. Once a valid court order has been made, every level of government is expected to comply with it.

“If the law is not obeyed, institutions begin to break down. If people start arguing that a judgment applies only because it was delivered in Abuja or elsewhere, that could interfere with the administration of justice,” the SAN said.

Ananaba added that failure to comply with court orders weakens the justice system and undermines the rule of law.

He noted that where disobedience occurs, affected parties can approach the courts for enforcement, which may trigger the court’s coercive powers against defaulting individuals or agencies.

“I encourage everyone to obey the law. Where there is disobedience to a court order, the law allows the affected party to approach the court for enforcement. When that happens, it can activate the coercive powers of the court against such persons or agencies,” Ananaba added.(Punch)