A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos State on Thursday morning nullified the collection of tolls on the newly constructed Lekki-Ikoyi link bridge built by the Lagos State government and designed like a suspension bridge.
Justice Saliu Saidu, the presiding judge in the case brought before the court by human rights lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, held that only the Federal Government withholds the power of control over all navigable waterways in the country.
He stated that though the only excuse made available by the Lagos State government for collecting the tolls on the bridge is that it is in partnership with another company, this excuse is untenable because the government built the bridge using state funds without seeking financial partnership with any company.
He said since there is no law supporting the toll fee, it is illegal and should be stopped forthwith.
The court had fixed Thursday 27th March 2014 to deliver judgment after the two counsels in the suit adopted their written submissions before the court.
The plaintiff, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had filed the suit seeking an injunction restraining the Lagos State government from collecting toll from motorists on the bridge.
Adegboruwa joined as first and second respondents in the suit, the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA). Attorney General of Lagos State, Ade Ipaye, and the Lagos State Government were the third and fourth respondents respectively.
Adopting his originating summons some weeks ago, 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 State House of Assembly.
He submitted that once the National Assembly has 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 also urged the court to hold that even if the Federal Government, through NIWA had authorised the Lagos State Government to construct the bridge, such authority did not extend to collection of toll, which is a form of taxation.
He prayed the court to grant judgement in his favour and declare the collection of toll on the bridge illegal and unconstitutional.
Responding, 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 argued that though Section 4 of the Constitution grants the National Assembly powers to make laws, the efficacy of such laws would depend on the areas reserved for it.
Ipaye told the court that there are laws in Lagos State, such as the public partnership law authorising collection of toll on roads, and therefore urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s case.
There have been controversies around the bridge, ranging from the amount allegedly spent by the state government to put the bridge in place, which is estimated at between N29bn and N32bn, and the engagement of the toll-collecting company, which had no role in the building of the bridge.
Lekki-Ikoyi Bridge: Lagos To Appeal Judgement Barring Toll Collection
The Lagos State government on Thursday evening declared that it would appeal the judgment delivered by a Federal High Court against the tolling of the multi-billion naira Lekki-Ikoyi Link Bridge.
It expressed natural concern for any development that may jeopardize the benefits accruable to the citizenry from the tolling.
In a reaction to the court judgment by Justice Saliu Saidu on the matter, Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaiye expressed the intention of state government to appeal the judgment, saying collection of toll on the bridge is meant to augment the state’s Consolidated Revenue Fund and enable the state offset debts incurred on the construction and keep the bridge properly maintained.
He explained that the collection is also to enhance the capacity of the government to replicate similar major infrastructure projects for rapid development across the state, adding that government would, therefore, “do its best to seek a reversal of the said pronouncement immediately”.
The attorney-general, who said two or three fundamental errors could be found in the judgment, declared: “We are, therefore, filing an appeal as well as an Application for Stay of Execution or maintenance of status quo immediately”.
First of the fundamental errors, he said, is that without addressing the submissions of the parties on the point, the court held that the payment made by Julius Berger (contractor on behalf of Lagos state government) to the Nigerian Inland Waterways Authority in respect of the bridge construction amounted to a concession that NIWA was the only authority mandated with regulating inland waterways in Nigeria.
Saying no such concession was made by the government or himself, the commissioner declared: “The payment was made by our contractor when NIWA was stalling the multi-billion naira construction.
“In fact, we expressly indicated to the court that we filed proof of payment by our contractor without prejudice to our very comprehensive arguments on the right of the state to control its inland waterways. It was not as a concession to the applicant’s claim.
“The second fundamental error was the assumption of the court that the Private Public Partnerships Law of Lagos state, which we cited in support of toll collection, did not apply simply because the bridge construction was not by public-private partnership.
“Contrary to the court’s assumption, the law clearly states that it applies to public infrastructure or public assets”.
He further clarified that tolls chargeable under the law can clearly be on any public infrastructure or asset, not necessarily on those built with private sector partnership adding that the maintenance and tolling of the bridge is by a private sector company to which a concession was granted by Lagos state government.
Noting 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’, the commissioner pointed out that the pronouncement made in this regard was not one of the nine declarations sought by the applicant.
“The judgment read this (Thursday) morning did not specifically address many of the questions raised by the applicant, neither did it grant any of the declarations sought”, Ipaye said.
“As you heard for yourselves, no order was made. However, the pronouncements referred to above are capable of being interpreted as court orders, hence our decision to appeal and seek a stay of execution immediately”.
