ASABA: There is an important conversation Nigerians need to have about the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Amendment Bill 2026 and the proposed ₦50,000 penalty for preaching, hawking or trading inside commercial vehicles.
But first, let us get the facts right.
The controversy has sometimes been presented as though the Senate has, for the first time in 2026, introduced a law criminalising preaching in buses. That is not entirely correct.
The FRSC’s existing offence schedule already lists preaching or hawking in commercial vehicle as an offence carrying a ₦50,000 penalty. The Senate has subsequently explained that the 2026 amendment does not create the offence afresh but retains and renumbers an existing provision.
The Senate nevertheless passed the 2026 amendment on July 16, 2026, and it is awaiting presidential assent. The legislation comprehensively revises penalties for numerous traffic offences, with the stated objective of improving road safety and reducing dangerous distractions.
That brings us to the real issue.
ROAD SAFETY IS A LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE
Nobody should oppose reasonable measures designed to protect motorists and passengers.
A commercial bus is a moving vehicle. Anything that distracts the driver, obstructs passengers or creates disorder inside the vehicle can legitimately be regulated.
But there is a fundamental distinction between regulating conduct because it creates a safety risk and prohibiting speech because of its content.
A preacher, hawker, musician, political campaigner or anyone else who distracts a driver should be subject to reasonable safety regulations.
The question is whether the law needs to prohibit preaching as such.
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY?
Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest and propagate one’s religion.
Section 39 protects freedom of expression.
But these rights are not absolute. Section 45 recognises that laws may legitimately restrict certain rights where the restriction is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, including for the protection of public safety and public order.
Therefore, the constitutional question is not simply:
“Can government regulate preaching?”
The more appropriate question is:
Is this particular restriction reasonably necessary and proportionate to the road-safety objective?”
That is a much stronger constitutional argument.
REGULATE THE RISK, NOT THE RELIGION
Suppose a preacher speaks loudly enough to distract a driver.
That is a legitimate safety concern.
Suppose a hawker moves repeatedly through a crowded bus, obstructing passengers.
That too is a legitimate safety concern.
Suppose a musician or entertainer creates excessive noise inside a moving vehicle.
That can equally be regulated.
The principle should therefore be:
Regulate the dangerous conduct, not the religious identity of the speaker.
A properly drafted regulation could prohibit conduct such as:
* distracting the driver;
* obstructing the driver’s vision or movement;
* blocking aisles or emergency exits;
* using excessively loud amplification;
* forcibly soliciting money from passengers; and
* engaging in any activity that demonstrably compromises passenger safety.
Such rules would apply equally to preachers, hawkers, entertainers, political campaigners and everyone else.
That would make the law easier to defend as a genuine road-safety measure rather than a restriction directed at religious expression.
WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
Nigeria’s obligations under international human-rights law reinforce the importance of the issue.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest religion in teaching and practice.
Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights similarly protects freedom of conscience and religion.
These freedoms may be subject to lawful limitations, particularly where public safety and the rights of others are involved.
Consequently, the answer is not that government can never regulate religious activity in a public place.
Rather, the restriction should be lawful, legitimate, necessary and proportionate to the objective being pursued.
AND THIS PRINCIPLE MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE
This is where Nigerians must be particularly careful.
A Christian should not oppose a regulation merely because it affects Christian preaching.
A Muslim should not support it merely because it affects Christian preaching.
And Christians should not demand an exemption that they would deny to Muslims.
The same principle must apply to Christian evangelism, Islamic Da’wah, political mobilisation, entertainment, hawking and every other form of public activity.
Equal protection means equal protection.
If an activity creates a genuine road-safety risk, regulate it—regardless of who is doing it.
If it does not create such a risk, government should be cautious about suppressing it merely because it is religious speech.
LET US ALSO AVOID A DANGEROUS FALSE EQUIVALENCE
The argument that Friday Jumu’at prayers sometimes cause traffic congestion deserves examination, but it should not be used carelessly.
Traffic obstruction resulting from a religious gathering and preaching inside a moving commercial vehicle are not necessarily the same legal or factual problem.
The proper question is whether authorities apply road-safety regulations consistently to all comparable conduct, irrespective of religion.
That is the standard of fairness we should demand.
WHAT SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DO?
The President should carefully examine the provision before assenting to the bill.
If the objective is genuinely road safety, the law should be drafted in a manner that clearly identifies the dangerous conduct it seeks to prevent.
Where a less restrictive provision can achieve the same safety objective, it deserves serious consideration.
Nigeria does not have to choose between SAFETY and FREEDOM.
We can have both.
We can protect passengers and drivers without unnecessarily weakening constitutional freedoms.
We can regulate conduct without discriminating against religion.
We can maintain public order without creating unnecessary suspicion.
And we can defend religious freedom without defending behaviour that genuinely endangers lives.
SAFETY YES.
FREEDOM YES.
FAIRNESS FOR ALL.
That is the conversation Nigeria should be having.
Frank Odion Apokwu is a Public Affairs Analyst Social Commentator Democratic Reforms and Inclusive Development Advocate. He writes from Asaba.
