Court of Appeal upholds ban on VIO vehicle seizures and fines

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday confirmed a lower‑court ruling that prohibits the Directorate of Road Traffic Services and Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) from stopping, impounding, confiscating or fining motorists without lawful authority.

A three‑judge panel delivered a unanimous decision, finding no merit in the VIO’s appeal against the October 16, 2024 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi read the lead judgment.

The original case was brought by public‑interest lawyer Abubakar Marshal, who said VIO officers stopped him on December 12, 2023 in Jabi, Abuja, and seized his vehicle without justification. Marshal argued that the officers’ actions violated his constitutional rights to freedom of movement, presumption of innocence and property ownership.

In its October 2024 ruling, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Nkeonye Maha, declared that no existing law empowers the VIO to impound vehicles or impose fines. The court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the VIO, its agents and any persons acting on its behalf from further infringing on motorists’ rights.

The appellate court affirmed that only a court of competent jurisdiction may impose a fine or sanction a motorist. It held that the VIO’s conduct breached Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, among other provisions.

Although Marshal’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Femi Falana, sought N500 million in damages and a public apology, the court awarded N2.5 million in compensation.

The respondents named in the suit, besides the Directorate of Road Traffic Services, included its director, the Abuja area commander (identified as Mr Leo), team leader Mr Solomon Onoja and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. Their appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

The Appeal Court recently struck out a case filed by Nnamdi Kanu challenging the government over alleged rights violations.
The court also reserved judgment in separate appeals involving Akpabio and Natasha.

The ruling reinforces the principle that enforcement agencies must act within the bounds of the law and respect constitutional guarantees