Agency commences subtle action as NURTW kicks
From Romanus Ugwu, Abuja
There is uneasy calm among stakeholders, as the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) prepares to enforce the proposed speed limit policy.
This comes as the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) has described the new government policy as anti-people and lacking in human face, vowing to resist it. But that is not all. There is controversy trailing the choice of the very technology to be deployed. The FRSC is being accused of preferring an analogue speed limiter technology to a superior, more advanced, cost effective and secured spider technology device.
Daily Sun gathered that as it stood, every commercial vehicle operator would be compelled to pay N36,0000 to have the speed limiter device fixed on their vehicle. This the NURTW considers as a rip-off, warning of severe consequences if the FRSC goes on to arrest its members.
However, the FRSC has maintained that the choice of the speed limiter device was based on the statistics that speeding was responsible for the high accident figures on Nigeria roads, noting that it placed premium on human lives in endorsing the speed limiter device ahead of spider technology.
Endless controversy over the policy
Before the speed limiter device received executive approval, it was a subject of litigation at Federal High Court, Abuja, which ruled against its implementation, even as the National Assembly gave it an inconsistent endorsement.
Daily Sun learnt that when the vendors of the two devices – Speed Limiter and Spider Technology submitted their proposals to the Presidency and the FRSC, there were allegations of impropriety, leading to the choice of one product before it was presented to President Muhammadu Buhari.
Adamant FRSC
Before now, a group had prayed an Abuja High Court presided over by Justice Evo Chukwu, to determine whether the FRSC had the right to unilaterally impose speed-limiting devices at the cost of N36,000 on commercial motorists.
Justice Chukwu on April 7, 2016 ruled that though FRSC had the right to deploy speed-control devices in order to make the highway safer, it did not have the right to impose N36,000 on every motorist.
Even after passing a resolution stopping the use of the device by the motorists, the National Assembly on its part, turned round to reverse itself.
Despite the court judgment and opposition to the device’s fee, the FRSC said there was no going back on its planned enforcement, insisting that the action would go on as planned.
FRSC Public Education Officer, Corps Commander Imoh J. Etuk, said that the FRSC had nothing to do with the high cost of the device, dismissing the insinuations that it would generate income to government.
“We have 38 marketers of the Speed Limiter device with seven more to come; competition would take care of the pricing. FRSC is not involved in the marketing or pricing; ours is simply to ensure standard. In the first place, we look at it as a worthy venture because most of the crashes we have recorded over the years were speed related.”
He dismissed allegations that the speed limiter had failed in some countries, saying that they had no proof. He also rejected arguments that the device would aid armed robbers, as vehicles fitted with it might not be able to run fast in crisis situation, stressing that speeding remained the main cause of most crashes on the roads.
Politics of rejection of Spider Technology
Daily Sun learnt that the Spider Technology device had a cutting-edge over speed limiter. But the authorities mounted campaigns against it, claiming that Nigeria was not mature for it. The technology was said to combine speed limit with security, employment and a promise to generate huge sums of money to government specifically from traffic offenders unlike the speed limiter direct taxation, which might enrich some individuals.
Daily Sun also learnt that in its proposal, Spider Technology promised to procure operational vehicles fitted with security cameras that record and transmit traffic offences and offenders to both the drivers and the FRSC control centres and imposes fines on the defaulters with specific dates and time to pay.
It also offered to train FRSC officials on the operation of the technology, which security agencies in the USA, UK, Germany and other parts of the world have embraced. The fines generated from defaulting vehicles would be shared on an agreed proportion between the service provider and the Federal government.
In the proposal, Emerald Petlib Ltd. said: “It is a complete Private Public Partnership (PPP) with the FRSC. This proposal has a two-way input for the partners. Emerald Petlib will procure all needed units of the spider equipment and technology, which include the back office at no cost to FRSC.
“We would install the spider system in all the patrol vehicles provided by FRSC. We will install the back office equipment in all state and zonal headquarters, including the master back office at FRSC headquarters in Abuja at no cost to FRSC.
“The funding of this project will come from two basic financial institutions: American Exim Bank and Nationwide Finance Emerald Petlib Ltd. Our staff and FRSC staff will operate the entire spider system, including the back office. Our staff will install, maintain and manage the spider system alongside FRSC.
“We will take 70 per cent and remit 30 per cent to the FRSC since we are to supply all the hardware, vehicles, and ambulances to FRSC and create a wavelength for the operation across the country,” the proposal read in part.
Etuk in his defence of the preference for the speed limiter technology said: “Forget Spider technology, the country is not yet mature for it. According to Spider’s proposal, government will provide security cameras but we are in a country where people are cutting road barriers for other purposes.
“We want good things but lack the culture of protecting them. Spider wants to provide cameras when we are still battling with poor roads and other facilities.
“There are necessary infrastructure that must be in place before installing the cameras. We can’t guarantee the security of those cameras and gadgets. The technology is capital intensive, same with fixing cameras along the roads.
“We are developing but have not reached that technological stage of Spider technology. Instead of waiting and postponing the take-off of speed limiter, why can’t we start somewhere?” Etuk quipped.
Challenging enforcement of speed limiter
Although the FRSC has commenced subtle enforcement of the speed limiter policy, some members of the NURTW say they are poised to resist the idea amid warning by the FRSC that it is going to arrest anybody who dares its officials.
“We could have gone head-on to full enforcement if we were involved in the marketing and pricing of the device. We must not forget that the speed limiter has been in existence in the country and some transport companies like ABC Transport have been using it. We want others to key into it because we found out that commercial vehicles accounted for over 60 per cent of the crashes on the roads,” Etuk argued.
However, some officials of the NURTW at Jabi Park, Abuja, told Daily Sun that their members had unanimously resolved to resist the speed limiter imposition.
“We are not ready to pay extra dime outside what we have already paid. We are spending much to maintain our vehicles because of bad roads and will do everything to resist any additional cost.
“If the speed limiter price was below N10,000, we could sensitise and mobilise our members to pay. The executive can bankroll it and later deduct the money from source without making them feel it just like we did when they introduced the fire extinguisher in 1996.
“However, this is impossible now with the amount being mentioned. We will see the end of this; it will not be palatable to the FRSC, as it is impossible for them to impose such amount on us and expect us to take it.
“We know our rights; the way to enforce them will not be pleasing to FRSC. We are going to protect our members at all cost. There is a limit to which we can exercise control over them. If FRSC officials arrest our vehicles over this speed limiter, they will not be able to operate on the road again because the union will match them force-for force, strength-for-strength.
They dismissed allegations that speeding accounted for the high percentage of accidents on the road, contending that it was even more difficult now to go beyond 80kph on most roads because they were death-traps. They also accused the FRSC of insensitivity in these austere times, warning that they would vent their anger and frustration on the agency if it went on to arrest its members.
In the same vein, they accused the FRSC and the speed limiter vendors of being clever, disclosing that both organisations didn’t want to be held responsible when they demand for agreement that should anything happen to our vehicles during installation of the device, they should be held responsible.
