By Dr.Muiz Banire.
Photo credit: Carmart.ng.
A few weeks ago, Nigerians woke up to the strange announcement by the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Transportation that, henceforth, vehicle owners are to renew their vehicle ownership certificates yearly upon the payment of a thousand naira.
This news came as a shock to Nigerians generally and has been strongly condemned by individuals and organizations like the Nigerian Bar Association.
To any discerning Nigerian, this is certainly an aberration not just because of the sum being charged but also due to the effect on the constitutional structure of the country.
Nigeria is constitutionally a federal state with powers/responsibilities shared among the constituent units.
Although in most federal countries power is often shared between the central body and the constituents, unlike in Nigeria where our constitution recognizes three tiers of government, inclusive of the local government councils.
I am not unaware of the contention in some quarters that the local government cannot be said to be a federating unit to constitute a tier, I certainly do not share the position.
I say this because federalism does not have a universal connotation and, as rightly opined by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in various decisions, federalism is a function of constitutional dictates in terms of conception.
This implies that federalism, in the context of Nigeria, is what the Nigerian Constitution says it is.
This controversy is, however, not the focus of this engagement.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the last three decades and up to date Nigeria has witnessed agitations around the issue of federalism.
Among the main agitators happened to be the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who only did not agitate the issue through advocacy but through the mechanism of law courts.
There is no doubt that the agitation has not ceased as there are still several lingering issues arising daily that are yet to be addressed and resolved.
It is in the midst of this controversy and tensions that the issue of annual renewal of vehicle ownership certificate or registration was introduced by the federal government, traceable to the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC or the Commission).
To a lot of Nigerians, the policy scheme is not only meaningless but exploitative.
As uproar greeted the policy, the federal government sought to rationalize the introduction of the policy in a bid to enhance the safety of vehicles.
This is the submission attributed to the FRSC.
As a concerned person, I join other Nigerians in condemning this irrational policy.
Beyond the fact that the same is unconstitutional, the point, which I shall return to later, it smacks of any rationality. Globally, registration of vehicle ownership is done once except there is a change of ownership and transfer of title.
In that wise, the subsequent registration is meant to update the database and provide any future desired answers to queries on the vehicle.
This is the means of assuring the integrity of the database.
Now, in the absence of a change of ownership and subsequent need for transfer of the certificate, on what premise will the original owner be renewing ownership in the absence of transfer?
Furthermore, if there is any threat at all to the integrity of the database and the endangering of vehicle information and safety, it is the introduced experimental scheme that will be the harbinger.
This point is best appreciated where not all vehicle registration renewal is done, as customary and characteristic of Nigerians.
Would the unrenewed registration/certificate constitute expired documentation or not, while the vehicles are still in operation?
This is the confusion to expect in the implementation and operation of the scheme.
Now, coming to the legality of the policy, it must be recalled that Nigeria operates on a Constitution which specifies the responsibilities of each level of the government.
By the Nigerian Constitution, the federal government can only deal with matters listed in the Exclusive Legislative List while sharing responsibilities with the states in matters listed in the concurrent part.
The implication of this is that for any item of responsibility outside the said lists, the federal government cannot and must not, in any form or shape, deal with such item.
A scrutiny of both the Exclusive and the Concurrent Legislative lists will reveal that the registration of motor vehicles is not a matter listed in either list in the Nigerian Constitution.
The import of this is that the federal government or any of its agencies cannot deal with the subject matter.
I am not oblivious of the provision of Section 5 (h) of the Federal Road Safety Act, which empowers the Commission to make regulations relating to registration, licensing, road worthiness of vehicles, driver’s license, etc., but the reality is that the section, just like a host of others in the said Act, is unconstitutional.
Since the legislative lists that conferred powers on the National Assembly failed to provide for such issues, the assumed enactment of the Act by the National Assembly and the deeming of same as an Act of the National Assembly is null and void.
The maxim is nemo dat quod non habet, you cannot give what you don’t have.
The National Assembly, and by extension, the federal government, lacks the legislative competence to enact the provision or gazette any regulation on the matter, respectively.
Consequently, the federal government is incapable of enacting any policy on the subject.
To this extent, therefore, the purported regulation by the FRSC and the Joint Tax Board is unconstitutional, null, and void.
I am struggling as much as possible not to bore you with any legalism. In the course of interrogating the subject, I stumbled upon a piece of information that the states are collaborators in this misadventure by way of what appeared to be delegated power.
Copied.
