The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) calls on the Lagos State House of Assembly to convene a public hearing to review the legal framework regulating commercial motorcycle (Okada) operations in Lagos State and, particularly, the manner in which the restrictions have been enforced.
This call has become necessary following persistent controversies, allegations of abuses, recurring violent confrontations and conflicting accounts between enforcement agencies, commercial motorcycle operators and communities over the scope and methods of enforcement.
The recent controversy arising from the Lagos State Taskforce operation at Agric Farm Estate, Ojo, once again illustrates the problem. While the Taskforce maintains that its operation followed petitions from Community Development Associations and was undertaken after surveillance against operators allegedly using the communities as bases from which to operate on prohibited highways, other accounts have raised questions about whether enforcement officers entered private premises or areas outside the prohibited routes to seize motorcycles.
RULAAC does not propose to prejudge the competing claims surrounding that particular operation. Rather, the controversy reinforces a larger and longstanding problem: there is an urgent need for an independent, transparent and participatory review of both the law and its enforcement.
RULAAC’s field research on the enforcement of the Okada restrictions in Lagos documented allegations from commercial motorcycle operators and community members of indiscriminate seizure of motorcycles, enforcement within streets and communities said not to be covered by the restrictions, extortion for the recovery of impounded motorcycles, inconsistent enforcement hours, dangerous pursuit of fleeing riders, injuries to riders and passengers, and the use of civilians in enforcement operations.
The research also documented the other side of the problem. Communities have legitimate concerns about reckless riding, obstruction of roads, accidents, criminal exploitation of motorcycles, environmental nuisance and resistance by some riders to lawful regulation. Police authorities have equally argued that motorcycles are sometimes used to facilitate robbery and other crimes and that enforcement officers have themselves been violently attacked, injured and killed.
These competing concerns demonstrate why the issue should no longer be treated simply as a contest between enforcement agencies and Okada riders.
The fundamental question is whether the existing regulatory framework remains clear, effective, proportionate and capable of being enforced consistently without creating opportunities for corruption, arbitrary enforcement or avoidable violence.
The Lagos State House of Assembly, as the institution that makes laws for the State and exercises oversight over their implementation, is appropriately placed to provide the neutral democratic forum required to answer these questions.
RULAAC therefore calls on the House to convene a public hearing at which the Lagos State Government, Ministry of Transportation, Lagos State Taskforce, LASTMA, Lagos State Police Command, commercial motorcycle operators and their associations, Community Development Associations, transport unions, commuters, civil society organisations, human rights groups, road-safety experts, lawyers, academics and other interested residents can present evidence and experiences.
Such a hearing should examine, among other issues:
1. The continuing suitability and clarity of the existing law and restrictions, including whether prohibited highways, bridges, LGAs and LCDAs are sufficiently clear and consistently communicated to riders, enforcement personnel and the public.
2. The geographical limits of enforcement powers, particularly recurring allegations that motorcycles are seized from residential streets, estates, parks, private premises and other locations outside prohibited routes.
3. Arrest, seizure and forfeiture procedures, including the legal basis and documentation for every motorcycle impounded, the issuance of receipts and inventories, procedures for challenging wrongful seizure, and what ultimately happens to motorcycles confiscated or forfeited.
4. Allegations of corruption and extortion, including claims that riders are required to make unofficial payments to recover motorcycles or avoid arrest and allegations of protection arrangements involving some enforcement personnel.
5. Use of force during enforcement, particularly high-speed pursuits, physical assaults, tear gas and firearms, and whether enforcement practices comply with constitutional safeguards, applicable policing standards and the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability.
6. Accountability for enforcement abuses and violence against enforcement personnel. Officers who abuse their authority should be investigated and sanctioned, just as riders or other persons who attack police officers or Taskforce personnel must be investigated and prosecuted according to law.
7. Transparency and data, including the number of enforcement operations conducted, persons arrested and prosecuted, motorcycles seized, motorcycles forfeited or destroyed, complaints received against enforcement personnel, officers disciplined or prosecuted, and casualties arising from enforcement operations.
8. The socioeconomic and transportation consequences of the restrictions, especially for communities where motorcycles remain an important means of last-mile transportation and for families whose livelihoods depend upon commercial motorcycle operations.
9. Alternative regulatory approaches, including registration and biometric identification, rider databases, designated operating areas, enforceable safety standards, training and licensing, identifiable uniforms or numbers and stronger cooperation between communities, riders’ associations and enforcement agencies.
The hearing should equally examine whether the law sufficiently distinguishes between lawful regulation and punishment. A person accused of violating a traffic restriction remains entitled to due process. Enforcement cannot legitimately become an opportunity for summary punishment, extortion or confiscation outside procedures established by law.
Similarly, legitimate concerns about enforcement abuses should never provide justification for riders to attack law-enforcement personnel, destroy public property or resist lawful arrest violently. Accountability must operate in both directions.
Of particular concern is the apparent scarcity of comprehensive publicly accessible data with which the success of the policy can objectively be measured. After years of enforcement, Lagosians should be able to know whether the restrictions have significantly reduced motorcycle-related accidents and crime, how many motorcycles have been seized and disposed of, what revenues or penalties have been collected, how many offenders have been prosecuted, how many enforcement officers have been disciplined for misconduct and how many deaths or serious injuries have resulted from enforcement-related confrontations.
Public policy should be evaluated on evidence, not assumptions.
A public hearing would therefore not amount to abandoning the legitimate objectives of road safety, security and public order. On the contrary, it would provide an opportunity to determine whether the present framework is achieving those objectives and how it can be strengthened.
The Lagos State House of Assembly should also use the hearing to clarify an increasingly important question: Is Lagos operating a total prohibition of commercial motorcycles, or a restriction applicable to specified areas, highways and bridges? If the latter, enforcement agencies must operate strictly within those limits. If government believes circumstances now require a different policy, that policy should be transparently debated and embodied in a clear legal framework rather than effectively created through inconsistent enforcement practices.
The recent Agric Farm Estate controversy is therefore an opportunity for institutional reflection rather than another cycle of accusation and counter-accusation.
The Lagos State Taskforce should be able to explain its mandate and operational procedures. Communities should be able to explain the safety and security problems they experience. Okada riders should be able to present evidence of alleged unlawful enforcement and extortion. Victims and commuters should be heard. Police and other enforcement agencies should present their operational challenges. Government should provide the relevant statistics. Independent experts and civil society should be allowed to interrogate the effectiveness and human-rights implications of the policy.
That is what democratic oversight requires.
After several years of restrictions and repeated enforcement operations, enough experience has accumulated for Lagos State to undertake an evidence-based review.
RULAAC therefore urges the Lagos State House of Assembly to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities by convening a comprehensive public hearing on the Okada regulatory framework and its enforcement.
The objective should be neither to demonise Okada riders nor to undermine enforcement agencies. It should be to develop a clearer, safer, more transparent and accountable regulatory system that protects public safety while ensuring that enforcement remains firmly within the law.
Lagos can enforce its laws without sacrificing due process. It can protect its roads without tolerating extortion. It can address legitimate security concerns without permitting arbitrary enforcement. And it can hold citizens accountable for violations while equally holding public officials accountable for abuses of authority.
Law enforcement derives legitimacy not merely from the existence of a law, but from its lawful, fair, transparent and accountable implementation.
Okechukwu Nwanguma
Executive Director
Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC)
Leave a Reply