By Ado Oyeyemi
The Federal High Court in Kano has ruled that officials of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) have no legal authority to enforce traffic regulations on state and local government roads, declaring such operations within Kano metropolis unlawful.
Justice M. S. Shuaibu delivered the judgment on Thursday in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Kano-based lawyer, Abba Hikima, against the FRSC.
The court held that the commission exceeded its statutory powers by stopping, questioning and delaying motorists on township roads in July 2025.
According to the judgment, the actions of the FRSC violated the applicant’s constitutional rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under Sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution.
The court granted all the major reliefs sought by the applicant, including a perpetual injunction restraining FRSC personnel from stopping or harassing motorists on roads under the jurisdiction of the Kano State Government without lawful authority.
Justice Shuaibu also ordered the commission to publish a public apology in a national newspaper and awarded the applicant N800,000 as damages and litigation costs.
The suit stemmed from an incident in July 2025 when FRSC operatives mounted checkpoints on township roads in Kano and allegedly stopped motorists, including Hikima, demanding driver’s licences and questioning them despite the absence of any primary traffic offence.
Challenging the action before the court, the lawyer argued that the FRSC’s enabling law limits its operational jurisdiction to federal highways and does not empower the commission to carry out enforcement activities on state and local government roads.
READ ALSO
- Flamingos thrash Brazil 3-1 to reach U-17 Women’s World Cup final
- Inside The Ka’abah: A Rare Honour And The Message From Makkah
- JAIZ Bank denies involvement in ₦104m Investment Fraud in Jos branch
- 2027: Obasanjo’s Son Joins PBAT Door-to-Door Movement, Backs Tinubu
- Helena, Kelly To Lead Brazil’s Attack Against Nigeria
The court agreed with the applicant’s arguments, holding that the commission acted outside the scope of its legal authority in carrying out the operations.
