DVLA to furnish court with timeline for passenger buses to have emergency exit
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) would on May 28, 2015 furnish the Human Rights High Court with a schedule, detailing a timeline within which all passenger buses without emergency exit doors would correct the defect.
Advertisement
The court, presided over by Justice Kofi Essel Mensah, had at the last hearing asked the parties in the substantive case to meet and agree on terms following which the court would put a final determination to the matter.
However, that meeting which took place on April 18, 2015 was inconclusive and the parties returned to the court last Tuesday, hurling accusations and counter-accusations at each other.
The original action had been brought by a Tema-based public servant, Mr Kwabena Osei, against the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and 10 others for flouting the law requiring commercial omnibus vehicles operating in the country to have emergency exit doors.
The 10 others are the State Transport Company, VIP, Ghana Private Road Transport Union (GPRTU), O & A Transport, Metro Mass Transit, J. A. Plant Pool, Progressive Transport Owners Association (PROTOA), Mariset Company Ltd (M Plaza), National Insurance Commission and the Attorney-General.
The case was instituted in 2011 but the DVLA and the IGP had failed to appear in court, compelling the court to order the plaintiff to file a writ of mandamus, following which a default judgement would be given if those parties still failed to make appearances.
At last Tuesday’s sitting counsel for the DVLA, Mr Ankomah Mensah, came to court with documents claiming the DVLA had begun processes to address the issue including writing letters to the Presidency.
But when counsel for the plaintiff requested for copies of the said letters, Mr Mensah refused to give him, saying the documents might get leaked to the media.
Other Trending Stories
Mr Ankomah, impressed on the court to grant it some days to come up with a schedule detailing how the DVLA intended to implement the programme to ensure that defective vehicles had been corrected.
Counsel for the plaintiff told the court that in spite of the pendency of the case, the DVLA was registering defective vehicles to which counsel for the DVLA said it might have been an oversight.
The court, accordingly, adjourned the case to May 28, 2015.
Mr Osei’s case
Mr Osei had contended among others that it was provided under the law that an omnibus was supposed to be constructed to provide at least two entrances or exits for passengers; one of which should be an emergency exit as approved by the licensing authority.
He also held that the DVLA, the authority which was created by law to promote good driving standards in the country and ensure the use of roadworthy vehicles on the roads, was charged to ensure strict compliance with the Road Traffic Act 2004 and its regulations.
The police, whose mandate it is to enforce the said provisions for the construction of passenger-carrying vehicles, he added, had neglected the sanctioning of offending motor vehicle operators and vehicles.
Reliefs
Among others, Mr Osei is seeking an order requiring the DVLA to examine all new and existing commercial vehicles and refuse to register and license any vehicle that did not conform to the prescribed requirements.