Justice Hauwa Yilwa of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) from imposing or demanding fines from motorists for non-possession of third-party motor insurance.

Delivering judgment, Justice Yilwa held that only a court of competent jurisdiction has the authority to sanction errant motorists.

However, the court declined to declare that both the police and the FRSC lack the statutory powers to enforce third-party motor vehicle insurance across the federation.

The judgment followed a suit filed by human rights lawyer, Mr. Deji Adeyanju, in which the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the FRSC, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were listed as defendants.

In his originating processes, the plaintiff sought the court’s determination on several issues, including whether, by virtue of Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1950, the IGP and his officers possess the powers to enforce third-party insurance.

He also asked the court to determine whether, under Section 17 of the 1950 Act and Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Insurance Act, 2003, the police have the authority to unilaterally impose fines on vehicle owners without an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Further, the plaintiff queried whether the alleged indiscriminate stop-and-search of motorists violates constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of movement, as guaranteed under Sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). He also sought clarification on whether enforcement powers lie exclusively with the FRSC under Section 10(4) of its Establishment Act, 2007.

Among the reliefs sought were declarations that the police lack the authority to enforce third-party motor insurance and that the AGF, as Chief Law Officer of the Federation, is obliged to guide the police on the limits of their statutory powers. He also sought injunctions restraining the respondents from enforcing the policy or imposing fines without a court order.

While the court granted the reliefs in part, it affirmed that both the police and the FRSC retain the authority to enforce compliance with third-party insurance requirements, albeit without imposing fines independently.

Prior to the judgment, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the police, which challenged its jurisdiction and the competence of the suit. Counsel for the Force had argued that the matter ought to have been commenced by a writ of summons and that the IGP was improperly joined as a defendant instead of the NPF.

In her ruling, Justice Yilwa described the objection as a deliberate attempt to frustrate the delivery of judgment and accordingly dismissed it before proceeding with the verdict.

Reacting to the decision on Friday, counsel to the police indicated that the matter would be taken to the Court of Appeal.

In a 24-paragraph affidavit he deposed to, Adeyanju stated that he is a tax-paying citizen and a member of the Nigerian Bar. He recalled that the police had, at a press conference on January 11, 2025, announced plans to commence enforcement of third-party insurance from February 1, 2025.

“Following the 1st respondent’s announcement, the National Insurance Commission, on January 16, 2025, expressed its full backing for the enforcement of third-party insurance,” the plaintiff said.

He further told the court that the police had indicated that motorists without valid third-party insurance could face fines of up to ₦250,000.

The plaintiff argued that allowing the police to impose such penalties would impose undue hardship on motorists and constitute an illegality.

The FRSC did not oppose any of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

Third-party motor insurance provides cover for damage or injury caused to other persons by a driver or vehicle owner.