AFTER a prolonged legal tussle, the Federal High Court yesterday said it was illegal for Lagos State Government or its agents or privies to collect tolls on the recently-constructed Lekki-Ikoyi bridge.
The judgment delivered yesterday by Justice Saliu Saidu in Lagos followed a suit filed by lawyer and human rights activist, Ebun Adegboruwa, against the collection of tolls on the bridge.
However, in a swift reaction, the state government said it would appeal against the judgment because of what it termed its ambiguous nature.
Saidu held that there was no law in Lagos State authorising the collection of toll on the bridge by the government.
According to the court, the power to control the Lekki Lagoon and other Federal Navigable Waterways lies with the national government in Abuja.
He said although the Federal Government has given some authority to the state to construct the bridge, there was no law authorising or permitting the collection of toll on it.
The judge noted that the bridge was not a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) initiative for which the collection of toll can be allowed.
Justice Saliu said: “The question is: Has the third respondent, Lagos State Government, made appropriate law to enable it collect toll on the bridge?
“The third respondent only cited Section 27, 28 and 29 of the Lagos State Public Private Partnership Law 2011 as making provision for collection of toll.
“There’s nothing before me to show that the subject matter in this case was as a result of the Public Private Partnership Law.
“The fact before this court is that the bridge was built with the third respondent’s money. I agree and uphold the construction of this bridge as of right.
“The third respondent has power to generate revenue from the subject matter, but the existing law does not cover it.
“The third respondent can only enact a law to that effect before it can collect toll on the bridge.”
But Ipaye said the state would immediately file an application for stay of execution of the judgment as a precautionary measure in order to prevent people from acting contrary in complete misunderstanding of the court’s verdict.
The commissioner, who briefed us in Lagos after the judgment, said the clarification became necessary because of the importance of the project to the state as the court never made any declarative or consequential orders, only that the court said there is no law permitting the state to collect toll on the bridge.
He contended that the judgment contained at least two or three fundamental errors, firstly that the court, without addressing the submission of parties, held that the payment made by Julius Berger on behalf of the Lagos State Government to the Nigerian Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) in respect of the bridge construction, amounted to a concession the agency was the only authority to regulate river channels in the country.
Ipaye explained that the payment of N10 million was made by the contractor when NIWA was stalling the multi-billion naira construction and that Lagosthen filed the proof of payment without prejudice to the comprehensive arguments on the right of the state to control its inland waterways.
Another fundamental error in the judgment, the commissioner said, was the assumption of the court that the Private Partnerships Law of Lagos State which was cited in support of toll collection did not apply simply because the bridge construction was not by public-private partnership.
Ipaye further stated that contrary to the court’s assumption, Section 29 Law clearly states that it applies to public infrastructure or public assets. “Tolls chargeable under the Law can clearly be on any public infrastructure or asset, not necessarily on those built with private sector partnership. The maintenance and tolling of the bridge is in fact by a private sector company to which a concession was granted by Lagos State Government.”
“It is noteworthy that the claimant never sought from the court any declaration to the effect that there was no law to cover the collection of tolls on the bridge and the pronouncement made in this regard was not one of the nine declarations sought by the applicant,” he noted.
In the public interest suit, Adegboruwa had sought an injunction restraining the Lagos State Government from collecting toll from motorists on the bridge.
Named as first and second respondents in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation and NIWA, while the Attorney-General of Lagos State and the Alausa, Ikeja Government are the third and fourth respondents.
In challenging the collection of toll on the new Lekki-Ikoyi suspension bridge, Adegboruwa urged the court to apply the provisions of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution to determine the supremacy of laws between the National Assembly and the House of Assembly.
But during the pendency of the suit, Governor Babatunde Fashola (SAN) on May 29, 2013 commissioned it and announced a toll regime of N350 for Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) and N250 for cars.
Adegboruwa had also submitted that once the National Assembly had made an Act in respect of any subject, such as the Lekki Lagoon on which the bridge is erected, a State House of Assembly is incompetent to make contrary laws.
He, therefore, urged the court to hold that even if the Federal Government through NIWA had authorised Lagos State to construct the bridge, such authority did not extend to collection of toll which is a form of taxation.
He prayed the court to declare the collection of toll on the bridge illegal and unconstitutional.
But Ipaye had argued that so far as there was a concession from the Federal Government for the construction of the bridge, the case of the applicant was nothing but an academic exercise.
He stated that though Section 4 of the Constitution grants the National Assembly powers to make laws, the efficacy of such legislation would depend on the areas reserved for it.
According to him, there are laws in Lagos State, such as the one on public partnership, which authorize (s) the collection of tolls on roads and therefore urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s case.
No comments:
Post a Comment