The Campaign for Constitutionalism and Human Rights, CCHR, has faulted the Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, over his assertion that a judgment of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on the activities of the Vehicle Inspection Office, VIO, does not apply to Lagos State.

The rights group described the position as legally unsound and misleading.

In a statement jointly signed by its Publicity Secretary, Olutola Folorunsho, and Executive Secretary, Toyin Raheem, CCHR maintained that the appellate court’s ruling has nationwide effect and binds all states of the federation. It warned that comments suggesting otherwise undermine the rule of law and could wrongly influence young legal practitioners.

According to the organisation, a judgment of the Federal High Court, once affirmed by the Court of Appeal, is enforceable across the country unless set aside by the Supreme Court. It stressed that the ruling in question did not exempt any state, including Lagos State.

CCHR argued that rather than issuing public statements disputing the scope of the judgment, the Attorney General ought to have approached the Supreme Court or sought judicial clarification. It insisted that the continued roadside operations of the VIO, including vehicle checks, harassment of motorists and alleged extortion, remain unlawful.

The group added that vehicle inspections should be conducted only at designated and approved centres, not through roadside checkpoints that, in its view, prioritise revenue generation over public safety.

It further stated that the activities of VIO officials in Lagos, Ogun State, and other parts of Nigeria violate subsisting court orders amount to contempt.

CCHR consequently called for the immediate withdrawal of VIO operatives from Lagos roads and demanded a public apology from the Attorney General to residents of the state and Nigerians at large for what it described as avoidable confusion.

The organisation warned that it would mobilise affected citizens to pursue legal action if the demands were ignored, reiterating that in a constitutional democracy, governments are bound to obey court judgments until they are lawfully overturned.