Inside Anambra’s Transport Reform: Who Really Benefits, and Should Safety Cost This Much? -By Daniel Nduka Okonkwo

The Anambra State Commuter Manifest Scheme Law, scheduled to take effect on May 25, 2026, represents a bold attempt to improve passenger safety and accountability through standardized documentation and compensation measures. By requiring commercial vehicle passengers to provide personal details and pay a modest safety fee, the scheme aims to establish a framework for accident response and financial support. While the objectives are commendable, the initiative raises important policy questions regarding its alignment with existing federal insurance laws, adequacy of compensation, transparency in revenue management, and protection of passenger data. Addressing these concerns will be essential if the scheme is to achieve its purpose rather than becoming an additional financial and administrative burden to the people.

The Anambra State House of Assembly recently passed the Commuters Manifest Scheme Law 2026, mandating passenger documentation for commercial travel. Under the law, commuters are required to provide details such as names, phone numbers, addresses, and next-of-kin information. It also introduces a safety fee of N100 for intra-city trips and N200 for inter-state travel, alongside a compensation framework of up to N200,000 for death or permanent disability and N50,000 for medical expenses. The stated goal is to eliminate anonymous travel and improve emergency response across the state.

At its core, the scheme seeks to formalize passenger records in commercial transport. In theory, this could enhance traceability in security situations, strengthen emergency response, and provide a structured compensation mechanism in the event of accidents. However, public policy must be evaluated not only by its intentions but also by its legal soundness, economic logic, and practical enforceability.

One immediate concern is the risk of double taxation. Passengers already pay transport fares, while operators are subject to various levies imposed by local governments. Introducing a mandatory safety fee raises questions about whether the state is imposing an additional financial obligation without clear constitutional backing. Given Nigeria’s constitutional framework, issues relating to road safety regulation, insurance, and interstate commerce often fall within federal jurisdiction. This creates a potential ultra vires issue, where a state law may encroach on areas reserved for federal authority.

This concern becomes more pronounced when considered alongside the statutory role of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), which oversees road safety enforcement nationwide. The law does not clearly define its enforcement authority, whether it lies with state agencies, the police, or federal bodies. This lack of clarity could lead to jurisdictional conflicts, duplication of duties, and possible abuse.

Nigeria already operates a compulsory motor insurance system under the Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance Act, designed to compensate victims of road accidents. The introduction of a parallel state-managed compensation scheme raises critical questions. It is unclear whether the scheme is intended to supplement or replace existing insurance obligations, or whether transport operators might rely on compliance with the state scheme as a defense against insurance liability. Without proper legal harmonization, this overlap could result in confusion, litigation, and potential denial of justice for victims.

The financial provisions of the scheme also appear misaligned with judicial realities. Nigerian courts often award damages far exceeding N200,000 in cases of wrongful death or serious injury. This creates a structural weakness, as victims or their families may prefer to pursue civil litigation rather than rely on the scheme’s limited compensation. In such cases, the framework risks becoming largely symbolic.

Equally concerning is the absence of detailed provisions on fund governance. While the law allocates 10 percent of generated revenue to motor park operators, it does not clearly state how the remaining funds will be managed, audited, or safeguarded. In an environment where public trust in financial accountability is often fragile, this lack of transparency raises concerns about potential mismanagement.

The scheme also mandates the collection of sensitive personal data, including contact information and next-of-kin details, without clearly outlining compliance with the Nigerian Data Protection Act (NDPA). This omission exposes passengers to risks such as unauthorized access, identity theft, and data breaches without adequate legal remedies. In modern governance, data protection is a fundamental requirement, not a secondary consideration.

Beyond legal and structural issues, the scheme faces practical implementation challenges. Commercial drivers already operate under multiple levies and regulatory pressures. Adding another layer of compliance, particularly one requiring passenger documentation, may slow operations and encourage informal practices, including bribery. Passenger resistance is also likely. In a strained economic environment, many commuters may view the safety fee as an unnecessary addition rather than a meaningful benefit.

Transport unions such as the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) and the Road Transport Employers’ Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) may also oppose the scheme, arguing that it interferes with their operations and imposes additional burdens without sufficient consultation.

Critics argue that the policy may be addressing the wrong problem with the wrong approach. Nigeria already has a framework for passenger protection through compulsory insurance and federal road safety enforcement. Strengthening compliance with existing laws, improving emergency response systems, and enhancing accountability mechanisms could deliver more effective results without introducing overlapping structures.

The Anambra Commuter Manifest Scheme reflects a familiar pattern in public policy, where a well-intentioned initiative risks being undermined by legal ambiguity, institutional overlap, and weak implementation design. If these issues remain unresolved, the scheme’s vulnerabilities, including constitutional concerns, financial opacity, data protection gaps, and enforcement challenges, could transform it from a safety mechanism into a contested revenue tool.

For a policy built on the promise of protection, its ultimate test will lie not in its intentions, but in its legal resilience and practical effectiveness.

Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is a Nigerian investigative journalist, publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate, and a policy analyst whose work focuses on governance, institutional accountability, and political power. He is also a human rights activist and advocate, with a strong commitment to justice and transparency.

His reporting and analysis have been featured in Sahara Reporters, African Defence Forum, Daily Intel Newspapers, Opinion Nigeria, African Angle, NewsBreak (local.newsbreak.com), Vanguard Newspaper, Daily Trust Newspapers, and other international media platforms.

He writes from Nigeria and can be reached at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.