The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Nigeria Police Force and the Federal Road Safety Corps from imposing fines on motorists over third-party motor vehicle insurance without a court order.
The ruling followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/291/2025 filed by activist-lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, against the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the FRSC.
Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Hauwa Yilwa held that while both the police and the FRSC have the power to enforce compliance with third-party motor insurance, they lack the legal authority to impose fines on alleged offenders.
The suit was initiated through an originating summons, brought pursuant to Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, as well as provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, 2007.
Adeyanju had asked the court to determine whether the police could enforce third-party insurance, impose fines without judicial backing, and whether such enforcement during routine stop-and-search operations violated constitutional rights.
He also sought a declaration on whether the power to enforce third-party motor insurance lies exclusively with the FRSC.
In addition to the declaratory relief, the applicant requested orders of perpetual injunction restraining the police from enforcing third-party insurance and from imposing fines without judicial backing.
He further urged the court to hold the Attorney-General of the Federation accountable for providing legal guidance on the scope of police powers under the relevant statutes.
However, in its judgment, the court drew a distinction between enforcement and sanctioning powers.
Counsel to the applicant, Marvin Omorogbe, said the court upheld the authority of both the police and the FRSC to ensure compliance with motor vehicle insurance laws but firmly ruled against the imposition of fines by either agency.
According to him, the court held that “the police and the road safety may enforce” compliance but “outrightly lack the powers to impose fines on third parties or vehicle owners” in the course of such enforcement.
“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,” Omorogbe said.
Reacting to the judgment, Adeyanju expressed satisfaction, noting that the central objective of the suit had been achieved.
“The sole reason why we came to court is that 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,” he said.
He argued that the ruling would curb what he described as a pattern of extortion by enforcement agencies and restore confidence among motorists.
Adeyanju added that although the court declined to grant all the reliefs sought—particularly the request to strip the police entirely of enforcement powers—it nonetheless made a significant pronouncement on the limits of those powers.
He also urged Nigerians to take advantage of the judgment to assert their rights and seek legal remedies where necessary.
On the other hand, counsel to the defendants, Victor Okoye, said the judgment was only partly favourable to the police and signalled plans to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.
Okoye disclosed that the defence had raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, arguing that the originating summons was incompetent and unsuitable for resolving contentious issues.
He relied on appellate authorities to stress that jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication and must be determined before any substantive issues.
Despite this, he noted, the court proceeded to deliver judgment.
“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,” he said.
Okoye further argued that the suit was improperly constituted, as the Inspector-General of Police was named as a party instead of the Nigeria Police Force as a corporate entity.
He also maintained that several issues raised by the applicant were contentious and should not have been initiated by an originating summons, which is typically reserved for non-contentious matters involving the interpretation of law.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the judgment affirmed the concurrent powers of the police and the FRSC to stop, search and verify compliance with third-party insurance requirements.
-PUNCH
