Ghana: Bright Simons Questions TraffiTech-GH Unlawful Penalties

• Bright Simons of IMANI Africa has raised concerns about potential abuse and unlawful penalties within Ghana's TraffiTech-GH system.
• Simons questioned the reliability of holding vehicle owners liable for offenses committed by others, especially with potentially inaccurate DVLA records.
• He highlighted that additional penalties, such as a daily 1% surcharge and restrictions on license renewals, lack clear legal backing.
• The TraffiTech-GH system primarily focuses on speeding, despite Ghana identifying 40-47 traffic offenses for broader enforcement.
• Simons urged that the contribution of speeding to road crashes be established through research, not assumptions, and challenged the idea of operating the system without scrutiny.

Simons explicitly stated that existing legislation offers very limited provisions for the imposition of these specific additional penalties, despite their inclusion in the TraffiTech-GH framework.

Bright Simons, the Honorary Vice President of IMANI Africa, has voiced significant reservations regarding the TraffiTech-GH system, specifically its enforcement framework. He cautioned that the mechanisms designed for traffic regulation could be susceptible to misuse, and that certain penalties proposed under the system might not possess adequate legal authorization. Simons elaborated that TraffiTech-GH operates through a combination of dedicated traffic cameras, mobile cameras deployed in unmarked vehicles, and speed guns. He stressed the importance of not assuming that all surveillance cameras visible across the country are integrated into this particular traffic enforcement initiative.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, Simons clarified that the majority of cameras encountered by motorists on public roads are primarily linked to national security operations or other general law enforcement activities, rather than being part of the TraffiTech-GH network. He pointed out that the initiative also utilizes mobile cameras and speed guns, which can be strategically relocated to various traffic hotspots as needed. While acknowledging the practical utility of this flexibility for detecting violations, Simons concurrently warned that the discretionary power to move this equipment also presents considerable opportunities for potential abuse within the system.

The TraffiTech-GH system identifies alleged traffic offenders by accurately capturing vehicle registration numbers and cross-referencing them with records maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA). Once an alleged violation is detected, traffic violation notices are dispatched to the registered owners of the vehicles via SMS, granting them a 14-day window to either settle the fine through USSD or formally dispute the offense. However, Simons raised critical questions concerning the fairness and reliability of holding vehicle owners solely accountable for infractions committed by other drivers. This concern is particularly pertinent in scenarios where vehicle registration details might be inaccurate or have been compromised, potentially leading to incorrect attribution of penalties.

A central point of contention for Simons revolves around the additional penalties levied for non-payment of fines. These include a reported daily surcharge of one percent and potential restrictions on essential services such as license renewal, vehicle registration, and the issuance of roadworthiness certifications. He underscored that the legal foundation for imposing many of these supplementary sanctions remains ambiguous.

The legal basis for these additional Ghana TraffiTech-GH unlawful penalties is a significant area of TraffiTech-GH enforcement framework legality concern. Simons highlighted that while the authorities claim these penalties are potentially permissible, there is scant legal backing for them within current statutes. Simons explicitly stated that existing legislation offers very limited provisions for the imposition of these specific additional penalties, despite their inclusion in the TraffiTech-GH framework. This raises questions about the legitimacy of applying such stringent measures, including the daily 1% surcharge and the withholding of crucial vehicle and driver documents, without clear legislative support. The implications for Ghana road traffic penalties legal basis are substantial, potentially exposing vehicle owners to sanctions that lack proper legal foundation.

Regarding the scope of the initiative, Simons observed that TraffiTech-GH's current enforcement efforts are predominantly focused on speeding offenses. While the broader system is designed to encompass a wider array of traffic violations, he argued that concentrating solely on speeding represents a limited intervention if the ultimate goal is to comprehensively address all forms of road indiscipline. Ghana has identified between 40 and 47 distinct traffic offenses for inclusion in its broader enforcement framework, meaning the current focus addresses only a fraction of the overall problem. Simons further emphasized that the actual contribution of speeding to road crashes and general traffic indiscipline should be substantiated through rigorous research, rather than relying on assumptions. He also challenged the notion that the system should be allowed to operate without thorough scrutiny simply because it is better to begin imperfectly and refine it over time, while acknowledging that no public intervention can achieve perfection prior to implementation.

Lawyers should advise clients on the potential legal challenges to TraffiTech-GH penalties, particularly regarding the lack of clear legal backing for additional sanctions and the liability of vehicle owners for offenses committed by others. Compliance officers should review their organizations' vehicle policies and driver responsibilities in light of these enforcement concerns, preparing for potential disputes over fines and ensuring compliance with legally sound practices.

Source: Original reporting via Prince Adu-Owusu