The Director-General of the Delta State Traffic Management Authority (DESTMA), Engr. Benjamin Okiemute, has denied claims that the agency violated motorists’ constitutional rights, insisting that DESTMA has not been officially served with any court judgment declaring its operations illegal.
Okiemute clarified during a press briefing in response to widespread reports of an alleged judgment delivered by Justice Emudaino, which nullified aspects of the DESTMA Law and faulted the agency for imposing fines and seizing vehicle number plates without court orders.
In the judgment, the court struck down Section 18(1) of the DESTMA Law, ruling that it conflicts with Sections 6(2), 6(5)(a), and 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which vest judicial powers exclusively in the courts. The judge held that DESTMA officials lack the authority to arrest motorists, impose fines, or seize vehicle number plates without due process of law.
The case was filed by Chuks Christian Ofili, who challenged the seizure of his vehicle number plate, BB 951 AKD, and the imposition of a N30,000 fine by DESTMA officials without being charged or convicted by a court. The court ruled that DESTMA’s actions violated Ofili’s rights to fair hearing and freedom of movement under Sections 36(1) and 41(1) of the Constitution.
Justice Emudainowho nullified the “Notification of New Traffic Offences and Penalties” issued to the claimant, ordered the immediate refund of the N30,000 fine, and awarded N500,000 as legal costs and N300,000 as damages, with interest at 10 per cent per annum.
Reacting to the development, Engr. Okiemute said DESTMA had not been formally served with any court process or certified copy of the judgment and was only aware of the ruling through reports circulating on social media.
“As I speak, neither DESTMA, the Delta State Government, nor my office has received any official court document relating to this alleged judgment,” he said. “Social media publications do not constitute official legal communication.”
The DESTMA boss stressed that the agency operates strictly within the law and does not exercise judicial powers, noting that traffic offenders are referred to mobile courts where magistrates determine guilt and appropriate penalties.
“DESTMA officers are not judges. Our role is enforcement, while mobile courts handle adjudication. Magistrates have the sole authority to discharge offenders, issue warnings, or impose penalties,” he said.
Okiemute acknowledged that there had been past court judgments relating to traffic enforcement, including cases dating back to 2016 and 2023, but said the agency had since adjusted its operations to align with its rules of engagement and applicable laws.
He added that DESTMA works closely with the Delta State Ministry of Justice, which provides legal representation whenever a legitimate case arises, and denied the existence of any parallel or conflicting legal teams within the agency.
Beyond enforcement, the DG said DESTMA prioritises public enlightenment through its advocacy department, which educates motorists on traffic rules, safety standards, and responsible road use.
“Our guiding principle is simple: if you do not contravene traffic laws, there will be no enforcement action against you,” Okiemute said. “Enforcement is not our first instinct; education and compliance are our priority.”
He acknowledged that disagreements could arise during enforcement but assured the public that the agency remains committed to fairness, transparency, and continuous improvement.
Okiemute also criticised what he described as misleading and sensational online reports, warning that DESTMA would pursue lawful means to protect its integrity.
“The long arm of the law will catch up with those deliberately spreading false information to undermine the agency,” he said, adding that DESTMA would engage relevant authorities and digital platforms to address misinformation.
Counsel to the claimant, Olukunle Ogheneovo Edun, SAN, had earlier described the judgment as a victory for constitutionalism and the rule of law, warning that traffic agencies must operate strictly within legal boundaries.
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for traffic enforcement and administrative sanctions in Delta State, particularly regarding the powers of traffic agencies and the rights of motorists.
