A High Court sitting in the Federal Capital Territory has delivered a significant ruling against the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), barring the council from arresting or confiscating private vehicles not used for commercial purposes within Abuja.
The judgment, handed down in early 2026 by the Federal Capital Territory High Court, described AMAC’s enforcement practices including vehicle seizures and forced payments as “unlawful, oppressive, and a violation of fundamental rights.”
The court ordered the council to immediately halt such actions, refund all illegally collected fees, and pay ₦2.5 million in damages to the affected citizen.
Legal observers say the ruling represents a major restriction on AMAC’s enforcement powers and could reshape its operations across the capital.
The court’s decision follows years of complaints and disputes over AMAC’s revenue practices across multiple sectors, including transportation, taxation, food businesses, and public health.
In the transport sector, residents have repeatedly accused the council of arresting and impounding private vehicles, imposing “mobile advert”, daily ticket fees on non-commercial drivers and forcing payments often running into tens of thousands of naira.
These actions formed the core of the legal challenge that led to the court’s intervention.
Read Also:
- Exclusive: Why Nigeria’s 2030 N1 Trillion economy target remains a mirage
- Court bars AMAC from regulating food businesses in Abuja, orders ₦1.22 Million refund
- Group praises Maikalangu’s re-election as AMAC boss, reviews FCT council polls
In 2025, AMAC faced widespread criticism after enforcing radio and television license fees across Abuja.
The charges ranged from ₦3,500 for households to as much as ₦1 million for corporate entities, sparking public outrage. Many residents described the policy as exploitative, particularly amid rising economic hardship.
Operators in markets, restaurants, and small businesses across Abuja have also accused AMAC of aggressive revenue enforcement.
Allegations include: Multiple and overlapping levies, task force crackdowns and threats to seal shops or disrupt operations.
The council later acknowledged that its system had been affected by “revenue leakages” and informal collections, reinforcing claims of unauthorized agents and duplicate taxation—especially impacting small traders and food vendors.
Beyond commerce, operators in clinics, pharmacies, and food-related services have reported unclear and often inconsistent charges tied to environmental and sanitation regulations.
These include environmental levies, sanitation, enforcement fees and compliance penalties.
Stakeholders say such costs have contributed to rising prices for basic health and food services, indirectly affecting consumers.
In late 2025, AMAC introduced reforms aimed at addressing internal inefficiencies. These included banning cash payments, launching a centralized digital revenue system, and deploying enforcement teams to curb illegal collections.
Officials admitted that the previous manual system created loopholes that enabled exploitation, suggesting that some controversial collections may not have been officially sanctioned.
The ruling is seen as the culmination of several issues:
Persistent allegations of rights violations, including extortion and unlawful seizures, increasing legal challenges from residents, evidence of excessive or unauthorized fee collection and weak legal backing for certain enforcement practices.
The court ultimately stepped in to limit the council’s powers and protect citizens.
The fallout from AMAC’s practices has been significant.
Economically, residents have faced higher living costs due to multiple taxes and financial losses from enforcement actions.
Socially, the situation has deepened distrust between citizens and local authorities, with frequent complaints of harassment.
Legally, the disputes have triggered a rise in court cases and increased awareness of citizens’ rights.
Analysts say the ruling could open the door to more lawsuits against AMAC and increase pressure on the council to review its by-laws and enforcement methods.
There are also expectations of heightened scrutiny from civil society groups and legal institutions.
While recent reforms signal an attempt at change, the judgment highlights a broader need for transparent and lawful governance in Abuja.
For many residents, the court’s decision marks a defining moment.
Years of complaints about arbitrary taxation, aggressive enforcement, and lack of accountability have now received judicial backing.
Whether AMAC adapts to the ruling or faces continued legal resistance may determine the future of governance and public trust in Abuja.
