On Thursday, December 4, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court that prohibits the VIO — formally the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (DRTS) — from stopping motorists, impounding vehicles, or imposing fines and penalties.
A unanimous three‑member panel declared the VIO’s appeal “devoid of merit” and confirmed that there is no statutory law empowering the agency to engage in such enforcement activities.
In addition, the court ordered the VIO to pay ₦1 million in legal costs for bringing an unfounded appeal.
Background: What Led to the Landmark Judgment
The ruling stems from a fundamental‑rights suit filed under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1695/2023 by public‑interest lawyer, Abubakar Marshal. He alleged that in December 2023, VIO officers in Jabi, Abuja — acting under the DRTS — unlawfully stopped him, impounded his vehicle, and demanded penalties, without lawful basis.
On 2 October 2024, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Nkeonye Evelyn Maha, ruled that none of the relevant statutes empowered VIO officers to stop, impound, confiscate, or fine motorists — defining such actions as unlawful, oppressive and a violation of fundamental rights.
The High Court subsequently issued a perpetual injunction restraining VIO and its agents from continuing such practices.
What the Court of Appeal Said — Why It Matters
In delivering the judgment, the lead justice, Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi, held firmly that the VIO’s appeal lacked merit — effectively affirming that enforcement powers they have long exercised have no legal foundation.
The court emphasized that only a court of competent jurisdiction — not an administrative agency — has the authority to sanction motorists or confiscate property.
By awarding ₦1 million in costs against the VIO, the court also signalled that such baseless enforcement efforts come with a price.
The judgment strongly protects motorists’ constitutional rights to freedom of movement, property ownership, presumption of innocence, and fair hearing.
Implications: What This Means for Motorists and VIO Operations
-
For motorists — particularly in Abuja — the decision is a relief. It curtails a major source of harassment: arbitrary stops, impoundments and fines without due process or lawful backing.
-
The ruling reinforces a clear legal boundary: administrative agencies like the VIO cannot usurp powers that belong only to courts.
-
It may prompt a re‑evaluation of how road‑traffic compliance and enforcement are handled in the FCT, possibly limiting VIO to its original mandate of vehicle inspection rather than punitive action.
However — and importantly — the decision applies to the VIO under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory. As such, it may not automatically affect similar enforcement bodies in other states, whose powers may derive from different local laws or regulations.
Reaction & Wider Significance
The judgment has been widely described as “landmark,” offering legal clarity and relief to motorists who have over time accused VIO officers of extortion and arbitrary confiscation.
For legal scholars and human‑rights advocates, the ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that enforcement powers are rooted in clear statutory backing — not discretionary administrative actions.
It also raises questions about oversight, training, and the proper role of agencies like the VIO — suggesting that in the absence of legislative reform, their mandate should be strictly limited to inspection and certification of vehicles’ roadworthiness.
