Should Road Safety Officials Be Allowed to Carry Arms?

A bill to establish a Road Safety Special Armed Squad under the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) recently passed its second reading in the House of Representatives. Expectedly, this proposed legislation has stirred widespread public reactions, mostly in the negative. Esther Oluku writes that this bill has intensified concerns about firearm intimidation and potential abuses against ordinary Nigerians given some cases where the FRSC officials have exhibited unprofessionalism while giving hot pursuit

The Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) has long been a cornerstone of Nigeria’s road safety infrastructure, focusing on traffic regulation, accident response, and driver education. However, a recent bill proposing the establishment of a “Road Safety Special Armed Squad” under the FRSC has stirred considerable public debate. With the bill’s second reading recently passed in the Federal House of Assembly, concerns are mounting over the potential implications of arming road safety officials. 

The bill, sponsored by Hon. Abiodun Derin Adesida (APC, Ondo) and Hon. Olaide Lateef Muhammed (APC, Oyo), aims to allow FRSC officials to carry firearms for the protection of FRSC infrastructure and personnel, not for general enforcement. Still, many Nigerians worry that this expansion of authority could lead to abuse of power, intimidation, and potentially violence, especially considering Nigeria’s current socio-economic challenges.

The Role of the FRSC: What the Act Says

Established by the FRSC Act of 2007, the Federal Road Safety Corps was designed primarily to ensure road safety through regulation and education, not through force. The FRSC’s statutory functions, outlined in Part One of the Act, section 5(h), focus on making Nigeria’s highways safer through vehicle registration, driver’s licensing, ensuring vehicle roadworthiness, and enforcing the highway code.

Furthermore, sections 5(i) and 5(j) underscore the FRSC’s role in providing emergency response services. These sections mandate the FRSC to establish roadside clinics and ambulance services, offering free medical treatment for accident victims to protect lives. This approach is consistent with global road safety standards, where the focus of similar agencies remains on road safety and emergency response rather than armed enforcement.

Section 14 of the FRSC Act outlines the equipment FRSC officers are permitted to use, including uniforms, communication gadgets, motor vehicles, and medical supplies. However, Part Two, Section 19, does provide a conditional right for FRSC officials to bear arms in high-security-risk areas, acknowledging the need to protect officials in certain extreme environments.

The bill currently before the House would extend this conditional arms-bearing right beyond high-risk situations, creating an FRSC Special Armed Squad to protect FRSC assets and personnel more broadly. Critics argue that this amendment represents a shift away from the FRSC’s core mandate, raising questions about whether arming road safety officials is necessary or appropriate.

Instances of Extortion by FRSC Officials

Public reservations are not unfounded. Numerous reports in recent years have highlighted cases of misconduct, extortion, and abuse involving FRSC officials. 

For instance, a 2021 report from the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) documented the arrest of at least 15 FRSC officials on charges of extorting motorists in states including Adamawa, Gombe, Ondo, and Osun. These arrests were part of a joint anti-corruption operation known as “Operation Tranquility,” conducted by the ICPC, FRSC, and Department of State Security.

In 2023, further instances of extortion by FRSC officials were reported, this time in collaboration with other security operatives along the Mile 2 road in Lagos. The Lagos State Police, led by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) Mr. Fatai Tijani, confirmed the arrest of multiple FRSC officials accused of extorting road users with the help of local thugs.

Such incidents reveal a troubling pattern of extortion by some FRSC officials, casting doubt on whether arming them would lead to a fairer or safer environment for Nigerian motorists. Critics argue that giving firearms to officials already accused of misconduct could further erode public trust.

Violence and Intimidation

Concerns about potential abuse are not solely financial; there is also fear of increased violence and intimidation. Recently, an X user (formerly Twitter), @spoiltkid, shared a video capturing an alleged incident of intimidation involving an FRSC truck in Asaba, Delta state. The video showed an FRSC vehicle overtaking and deliberately blocking a private car, causing an accident. Witnesses criticized the FRSC officials’ actions, suggesting they demonstrated a misuse of authority and a disregard for public safety.

In a particularly grave incident in 2019, two FRSC officials were arrested for allegedly killing a passenger, Mr. Odion Omafo Samuel, in Benin. Reports indicate that Mr. Samuel was traveling in a cab stopped by FRSC officials along Agbor Road. An altercation ensued when Samuel intervened on behalf of the driver, reportedly resisting attempts at extortion. The situation escalated, allegedly leading the officials to chase Mr. Samuel into a nearby bush, where he was beaten to death. 

These incidents suggest a worrisome trend of alleged violence by FRSC personnel, particularly against citizens who resist attempts at extortion. Many argue that equipping officials with firearms could exacerbate these incidents, creating more risk than protection for everyday Nigerians.

 Citizen Reactions

Public response to the proposed bill has been largely negative, with many Nigerians voicing fears that the measure could lead to further abuse of power by officials already accused of misconduct. Many argue that arming the FRSC would duplicate functions already under the purview of the police force, which has a clear mandate to protect public infrastructure.

On X, user @Sirkay3024 remarked, “He (the Corps Marshal) said the arms won’t be for enforcement but just a squad to protect their facility. My question is, what then will be the work of the police? Many government agencies use either police or military to secure their premises or infrastructure. If FRSC needs security, they can call on IGP to give them one.” This sentiment echoes a broader question regarding the proper role of FRSC in road safety versus security.

Another X user, @ThouSonOfMan, questioned whether the FRSC had adequately fulfilled its core mission of protecting road users before expanding its mandate. He stated, “Have you people protected the commuters that you are meant to protect, secure and put right, and you are seeking to protect properties.”

Notable Nigerian pastor Femi Lazarus has also spoken out against the bill, urging Nigerians to lend their voices to prevent the amendment. Drawing on the memory of the #EndSARS protests against police brutality, Lazarus warned, “We don’t want to see this nation burn. Every developed country is managing its road and safety guidelines with technology, not with guns. We cannot say the future is for the youth, and we are killing them. Enough of that. I want to beg Nigerians to lend their voices to this.” Pastor Lazarus further emphasized, “That bill must not succeed. We don’t want a case where people are shot, husband or wife. We’ve seen too many people killed by trigger-happy officials. Not again.”

Corps Marshal Shehu Defends Amendment Bill

In response to public concerns, FRSC Corps Marshal Mohammed Shehu has clarified the intent behind the amendment, stating that the proposed armed squad would be strictly for protection of FRSC property and personnel, not for use in routine traffic enforcement. 

Speaking in a recent interview, Shehu explained, “This is a very delicate matter. In our Act ab initio, there is a provision and emphasis to have and to hold arms. We are not asking for arms to do enforcement. We are asking for just a squad like other paramilitary, and the idea is to protect our infrastructure and our facilities.”

Shehu’s comments highlight the FRSC’s concern for security in light of recent threats to public infrastructure across the country. However, public response has remained skeptical, with many Nigerians questioning whether this expansion of the FRSC’s mandate is necessary and if it could risk increasing abuse and misuse of power.

A Risk Worth Taking?

The proposed FRSC armed squad raises significant questions about the future of road safety and security in Nigeria. While proponents argue that the bill would enhance the FRSC’s capacity to protect its personnel and infrastructure, opponents worry it could lead to more abuse and harassment of citizens on Nigerian roads.

The potential for abuse is particularly concerning in light of ongoing economic struggles that may heighten tensions between officials and road users. With limited job opportunities and rising inflation, adding firearms into this dynamic could be a dangerous move that increases intimidation rather than security. In this sense, public fears align with a broader global shift towards non-militarized, technology-driven road safety initiatives.

Ultimately, the challenge for the FRSC, if the bill passes, will be to uphold restraint, professionalism, and accountability in managing this expanded authority. However, whether these safeguards can sufficiently mitigate the risk of abuse remains uncertain. Policymakers and citizens alike must weigh whether the potential security benefits of an armed squad genuinely outweigh the risks to public trust, safety, and the core mission of Nigeria’s Federal Road Safety Corps.