A JUDGE of the Federal
High Court, Lagos, Justice
James Tsoho, has ruled
that the Federal Road
Safety Commission (FRSC)
does not have the powers
to impose fines on
motorists.
The decision of the court arose from a suit filed
by a lawyer, Mr. Tope Alabi, challenging the
powers of the Commission to impose fine on
erring motorists.
Justice Tsoho, in his judgment delivered on
September 6 which copies were released
yesterday, held that FRSC cannot turn itself into
a court of law by punishing those who commit
traffic offences.
The plaintiff had prayed the court to declare that
only a court of competent jurisdiction can
pronounce a person guilty under Section 10 (4)
and 28 (2) of the FRSC (Establishment Act) 2007
and Regulation 143 of the Nigerian Roads Traffic
Regulation, 2011.
The judge declared the sections null and void for
being inconsistent with Section 6 of the 1999
Constitution.
He also awarded N1 million damages to the
plaintiff because FRSC confiscated his vehicle
and driver’s licence. “It is my conviction that the
plaintiff is entitled to remedy on this account,”
he said.
Justice Tsoho said while FRSC is statutorily
empowered to arrest and fine traffic offenders, a
closer look at the definition of the word “fine”
means ‘a pecuniary criminal punishment or civil
penalty payable to the public treasury.’
“In the instance case, however, the involvement
of the element of arrest takes the imposition of
fine by the second defendant (FRSC) to the realm
of criminal punishment.
“It is noteworthy that a fine, when viewed from
that perspective, is a component of sentence.
“From these definitions, it is obvious that the act
of sentencing is a judicial action or exercise.
Imposition of fine connotes conviction for an
alleged offence. This pre-supposes a trial and
conviction of the person fined, especially having
regard to the definition of sentencing.
“It is, thus, very clear that the FRSC, not being a
court of law, can not impose fine, especially that
it has no powers to conduct trial.
“Hence, the exercise of the statutory powers
given to the second defendant under the Act as
pertain to imposition of fine is clearly a
usurpation of judicial powers exclusively vested
in the courts,” the judge held.
He further held that FRSC’s imposition of fine on
the plaintiff because of his cracked windscreen is
illegal.
“In the circumstances, I endorse the plaintiff’s
submission that by virtue of S.1 (3) of the
Constitution, the power to impose fine conferred
on FRSC by the enabling Act is null and void to
the extent of its inconsistency with Section 6 of
the Constitution,” the judge held.
The judge said though the National Assembly is
empowered to make laws, it cannot go outside
the limits set by the 1999 Constitution.
“Basically, an unconstitutional legislation is null
and void. That is, therefore, the effect of Section
28 (2) of the FRSC Act 2007 which has
purportedly conferred power on the second
defendant to impose fine, which is a judicial
function. Such power is unconstitutional and
unenforceable.
“The FRSC is not constitutionally vested with
judicial powers and cannot and should not under
any guise purport to function as a court, with
competence to impose fine on alleged
offenders.
“Much as FRSC seems to have passionate zeal
for traffic law enforcement, it cannot be allowed
to do so in breach of constitutional provisions.
“It is necessary to add that even in respect of
strict liability offences, a court of law should
appropriately declare the guilt of an alleged
offender and then impose fine.
“FRSC’s function should not go beyond issuance
of mere notices of offence,” the judge said.
Besides, Justice Tsoho said FRSC resorted to
“legislative absurdity” when it imposed a fine of
N3,000 on Alabi rather than the N2,000
statutorily prescribed.
“The point must be made that it is a cardinal
principle of natural justice that no person be
condemned without being heard. It is in
observance of this that a person alleged to have
committed an offence has to respond to such
allegation before a court of law during trial,” he
held.
According to the judge, Alabi was issued a notice
of offence sheet on April 4 last year, but FRSC
did not take him to court for five months before
the plaintiff filed his suit on September 9 last
year.
“The vital question to ask is how long would the
second defendant reasonably take to commence
prosecution of a traffic offence? The plaintiff was
not under obligation to wait indefinitely for
redress due to FRSC’s inaction or laxity,” the
judge added.
The judge faulted FRSC’s practice of detaining
vehicle whose drivers commit traffic offences.
He said: “I hold the view that confiscation of the
vehicle was unnecessary in the first place,
though the second defendant (FRSC) spiritedly
sought to justify it.
“The seemingly indefinite retention of the
plaintiff’s vehicle papers and driver’s licence by
officers of the second defendant is totally
unreasonable, insensitive and unacceptable.
“The confiscation no doubt deprived the plaintiff
of the use of the vehicle for as long as it lasted
and also custody of his vehicle papers and
driver’s licence.”
The judge granted 11 of the plaintiff’s 14 reliefs,
and said he was awarded N1 million rather than
the N10 million Alabi prayed for because “FRSC
acted under the belief that it was statutorily
empowered to so act,” adding that the
commission’s innocent mistake “constitutes a
mitigating factor as to the quantum of
damages.”
The National Assembly, FRSC and the Attorney-
General of the Federation and Minister of
Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), were the
defendants in the suit with reference No. FHC/L/
CS/1234/13.

ok