.jpeg)
A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, has dismissed a legal offensive questioning the Lagos State Government's restriction of commercial motorcycles (Okada) and tricycles (Keke NAPEP) from some of its roads.
Justice Aluko particularly held that the applicant, Julius Ajibulu, “failed woefully” in his bid to reverse the ban, which has been in place since 2018.
The judge further declared that Ajibulu also failed, among others, to establish that the state government has no power to ban the operation of tricycles and motorcycles in respect of the designated roads in the state.
Justice Aluko's decision came as a result of the plaintiff's suit marked FHC/L/CS/1389/2020, against the Governor of Lagos State, Attorney General of Lagos State, Commissioner for Transportation, and Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly, as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.
It would be recalled that the state government had on January 27, 2020, moved against commercial motorcycles (Okada) and tricycles (Keke NAPEP), proscribing their operations in six Local Government Areas (LGAs), nine Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) and 10 major highways across the state with effect from February 1, 2020.
The state government had particularly directed security operatives to embark on a total enforcement of the State’s Transport Sector Reform Law of 2018 to immediately address the chaos and disorderliness created by illegal operations of 'Okada' and tricycle riders in restricted areas.
The Babajide Sanwo-Olu-led government had equally banned 'Okada' and tricycles from plying 40 bridges and flyovers across the state.
However, Ajibulu, argued that Sections 15, 16, 19, 46, and 68 of the Lagos State Transport Sector Reform Law 2018, violated Sections 1, 4, 5, items 11 and 63 of the Exclusive Legislative List in Part 1, Second Schedule to the Constitution.
The plaintiff had contended it also offended Section 10 (3) (t) of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, Section 92 of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, and Section 1 of the Federal Highways Act/Subsidiary Legislation Cap F13, LFN, 2004.
But in his judgment handed down on January 12, 2023, Justice Aluko agreed with the defendants that Ajibulu's case did not hold water.
The trial judge agreed, as Ajibulu argued, that Section 4(3) of the Constitution gives the National Assembly power to make laws concerning any matter in the Exclusive Legislative List to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.
According to the judge, “The plaintiff has referred the court to Items 11 and 63 of Part 1 in the Exclusive Legislative List which has to do with construction, alteration, and maintenance of such roads as may be declared by the National Assembly to be Federal trunk roads and traffic on Federal trunk roads.
“The plaintiff has, however, failed to show to the court that all the over 40 roads and bridges listed in his reliefs are Federal trunk roads declared by the National Assembly as provided under Items 11 and 63 in the Exclusive Legislative List under Part 1 of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution.
“The plaintiff failed to establish before the court that the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 19, 46, and 68 of the Lagos State Transport Sector Reform Law 2018 were made to apply to the operations of tricycles and motorcycles in respect of the over 40 roads mentioned in his reliefs.”
Justice Aluko noted that Ajibulu “failed woefully to prove his entitlement to the reliefs stated in the originating summons.
"The plaintiffs have failed to establish that the State House of Assembly has no power to have made the law in contention, and has equally failed to establish that the state government has no power to ban the operation of tricycles and motorcycles in respect of the designated roads in Lagos State.
“Granting the reliefs of the plaintiff without placing any credible evidence before the court is tantamount to preventing the State House of Assembly from making laws for the peace, order, and good governance of the state or any part thereof and engaging in such venture will undoubtedly constitute a violation of, and amount to overrunning Section 4 (7) CFRN, 1999 (as amended).
“That is forbidden, and this court will not venture into such an unconstitutional enterprise.
“Coming from the foregoing, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case by credible evidence as required by law.
“Accordingly, the case of the plaintiff lacks merit, and the same is hereby dismissed.”
All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.
إرسال تعليق