By Lakpene Yusuf Bida,Esq.
This dicey question calls for more discussions in the light of the recent judgment delivered by the Federal High Court, Abuja, banning traffic warders from effecting the arrest, fine and detention of vehicles on roads.
This court judgment was however attacked by the Niger State Director of Traffic Services that such Court judgment is not applicable to the State on the basis that Niger State has powers to make laws on anything including traffic laws. This to me is not the right interpretations and understanding of the operations of 1999 CFRN in the absence of judicial interpretation of laws.
Let us go through the organic laws of the 1999 CFRN. Section 4 provides for two categories of institutions that is empowered to make laws for the good governance of Nigeria and they are the National and State Assemblies across the States.
Thus, Part I Legislative Powers (Execlusive Legeslative List) has 68 Items that it is the National Assembly alone that has the power to legislate upon them.
Item 45 provides for the making of laws for the Police and other government security services established by law. While Item 63 also specifically provides for laws on Traffic on Federal Trunk Roads. These two Items must be constitutionally considered critically before holding any opinion on laws made by States on traffic regulations generally.
But unfortunately Section 4 Part II (Concurrent Legislative List) throughout its 30 Items fails to provide where both the National and State Assemblies can legislate concurrently on Traffic matters. This clearly shows that State House of Assembly and by extension the State Governments cannot make any form of legislation on Traffic as far as 1999 CFRN is concerned but only the National Assembly and by extension the Federal Government.
Therefore, the judgment of the Federal High Court is valid and applicable on all the States by virtue of sections 2(2) and 3(1) of the Constitution and shall be obeyed by every persons and institutions across Nigeria as by the provisions of section 1(1) of the Constitution.
Therefore the position and views of the Niger State Director of Traffic Services cannot hold water in the absence of valid Court interpretations of Items 45 and 63 of the Exclusive Legislative List as it affects States. The Federal High Court Judgement stands valid and any disobedience in the absence of any other Court interventions amounts to Court contempt by anybody or institution as well as not to throw away both the baby and the birth water.
This view is open for more discussions by interested persons. As more importantly, constitutional provisions supercede any personal views.
May we be guided.
Lakpene Yusuf Bida,Esq.
Public Affairs Analyst
24th-10-2024.
