VIOs on highways obstructing traffics
Legal experts have faulted claims by the Lagos State Government suggesting that a recent court judgment restricting the operations of the Vehicle Inspection Office, VIO, does not apply within the state, insisting that decisions of superior courts are binding across Nigeria under the Constitution.
The controversy followed a judgment delivered by a Federal High Court and reinforced by the Court of Appeal, which placed limits on certain road enforcement activities carried out by the VIO. In response, Lagos authorities reportedly argued that the ruling, delivered outside the state, does not automatically apply in Lagos.
However, constitutional lawyers say this position is inconsistent with the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which establishes both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal as single national courts whose decisions have nationwide effect.
Under Sections 249 and 287(3) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court is one indivisible court with jurisdiction throughout the federation. Its various divisions in Abuja, Lagos, Port Harcourt, and other cities exist only for administrative convenience and do not limit the reach of its judgments.
“A judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja binds authorities and persons across the entire country, including Lagos,” a constitutional lawyer said. “There is no legal basis for treating Lagos as an exception.”
The same principle applies to the Court of Appeal. Sections 237 and 287(2) of the Constitution clearly state that the Court of Appeal is a single national court, and its decisions are binding on all states of the federation.
Legal analysts explain that once the Court of Appeal issues a decision, all lower courts, government agencies, and state authorities are constitutionally required to comply, regardless of where the case originated.
Beyond the legal argument, the judgment has drawn renewed attention to long-standing complaints about the conduct of traffic enforcement agencies in Lagos, particularly the VIO. For years, motorists have accused the agency of harassment, intimidation, and extortion during roadside checks.
Civil society groups say the court ruling has exposed deeper systemic problems within traffic enforcement operations. “This judgment is not just about jurisdiction; it is about abuse of power on our roads,” a rights advocate said.
There have been repeated allegations that VIO officials carry out questionable inspection practices, physically confront motorists, and operate outside their lawful mandate. Many drivers argue that enforcement activities often prioritise revenue generation over road safety.
According to legal observers, the court decision seeks to reaffirm the rule of law and clarify the limits of enforcement powers. They insist that traffic agencies must operate strictly within the framework of the law and respect the rights and dignity of citizens.
“The Constitution is clear. Court judgments are not advisory opinions,” a senior lawyer noted. “They must be obeyed by all authorities, whether federal or state.”
Critics warn that selective obedience to court decisions undermines the authority of the judiciary and weakens public confidence in governance. They argue that allowing states to interpret court judgments at will could lead to legal uncertainty and disorder.
As public debate continues, many Lagos residents are calling on the state government to align its policies with constitutional requirements and ensure that traffic agencies comply fully with the law.
Observers say meaningful reform of traffic enforcement practices, including better training, oversight, and accountability, is necessary to restore trust and prevent further abuses.
For motorists, the hope is that the Appeal Court decision will serve as a turning point, ensuring that traffic regulation in Lagos and across Nigeria is guided by legality, fairness, and respect for human rights.
