Last Thursday, the Senate passed the Federal Road Safety Corps (Amendment) Bill, 2026. According to the upper chamber of the National Assembly, the review is aimed at strengthening the FRSC’s enforcement powers, improving compliance with traffic regulations and enhancing safety on Nigerian roads. Naturally, anything that will contribute to reducing crashes on our roads should excite every right-thinking Nigerian.However, among the various provisions proposed in the amendment bill, one stood out like a sore thumb, thereby igniting debate about the delicate balance between public order and fundamental rights. That provision proposes a fine of N50,000 for anyone convicted of hawking, trading or preaching inside commercial vehicles. Lawmakers explained that the provision was introduced to discourage distractions in commercial vehicles and improve the safety of commuters.For decades, commercial buses in Nigeria have served not only as a means of transportation but also as platforms for evangelism, public enlightenment, political mobilisation and small-scale trading. They are places where preachers share religious messages, hawkers sell affordable goods, public health campaigns are conducted, political awareness is spread and, on some occasions, even government agencies disseminate information to citizens.The truth is that some passengers genuinely feel uncomfortable when subjected to unsolicited preaching or aggressive hawking while travelling in commercial vehicles. That is understandable. However, it is equally true that there are many other passengers who deliberately look forward to listening to these mobile preachers or patronising the hawkers because they find value in what they offer. For some commuters, the journey becomes an opportunity to hear a word of encouragement, pray for journey mercies or purchase an item they may not have had the time to buy elsewhere.While many passengers may find sermons in commercial vehicles or sales pitches irritating, annoyance alone should not be sufficient reason to criminalise activities that touch directly on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If the government is determined to regulate what happens inside commercial buses, it must first answer a simple question: what exactly is the problem it seeks to solve? Government undoubtedly has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure safety, but any regulation introduced to achieve those objectives must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of passing the test of constitutional scrutiny.The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. However, among the various provisions proposed in the amendment bill, one stood out like a sore thumb, thereby igniting debate about the delicate balance between public order and fundamental rights. That provision proposes a fine of N50,000 for anyone convicted of hawking, trading or preaching inside commercial vehicles. Lawmakers explained that the provision was introduced to discourage distractions in commercial vehicles and improve the safety of commuters.For decades, commercial buses in Nigeria have served not only as a means of transportation but also as platforms for evangelism, public enlightenment, political mobilisation and small-scale trading. They are places where preachers share religious messages, hawkers sell affordable goods, public health campaigns are conducted, political awareness is spread and, on some occasions, even government agencies disseminate information to citizens.The truth is that some passengers genuinely feel uncomfortable when subjected to unsolicited preaching or aggressive hawking while travelling in commercial vehicles. That is understandable. However, it is equally true that there are many other passengers who deliberately look forward to listening to these mobile preachers or patronising the hawkers because they find value in what they offer. For some commuters, the journey becomes an opportunity to hear a word of encouragement, pray for journey mercies or purchase an item they may not have had the time to buy elsewhere.While many passengers may find sermons in commercial vehicles or sales pitches irritating, annoyance alone should not be sufficient reason to criminalise activities that touch directly on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If the government is determined to regulate what happens inside commercial buses, it must first answer a simple question: what exactly is the problem it seeks to solve? Government undoubtedly has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure safety, but any regulation introduced to achieve those objectives must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of passing the test of constitutional scrutiny.The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. For decades, commercial buses in Nigeria have served not only as a means of transportation but also as platforms for evangelism, public enlightenment, political mobilisation and small-scale trading. They are places where preachers share religious messages, hawkers sell affordable goods, public health campaigns are conducted, political awareness is spread and, on some occasions, even government agencies disseminate information to citizens.The truth is that some passengers genuinely feel uncomfortable when subjected to unsolicited preaching or aggressive hawking while travelling in commercial vehicles. That is understandable. However, it is equally true that there are many other passengers who deliberately look forward to listening to these mobile preachers or patronising the hawkers because they find value in what they offer. For some commuters, the journey becomes an opportunity to hear a word of encouragement, pray for journey mercies or purchase an item they may not have had the time to buy elsewhere.While many passengers may find sermons in commercial vehicles or sales pitches irritating, annoyance alone should not be sufficient reason to criminalise activities that touch directly on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If the government is determined to regulate what happens inside commercial buses, it must first answer a simple question: what exactly is the problem it seeks to solve? Government undoubtedly has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure safety, but any regulation introduced to achieve those objectives must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of passing the test of constitutional scrutiny.The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The truth is that some passengers genuinely feel uncomfortable when subjected to unsolicited preaching or aggressive hawking while travelling in commercial vehicles. That is understandable. However, it is equally true that there are many other passengers who deliberately look forward to listening to these mobile preachers or patronising the hawkers because they find value in what they offer. For some commuters, the journey becomes an opportunity to hear a word of encouragement, pray for journey mercies or purchase an item they may not have had the time to buy elsewhere.While many passengers may find sermons in commercial vehicles or sales pitches irritating, annoyance alone should not be sufficient reason to criminalise activities that touch directly on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If the government is determined to regulate what happens inside commercial buses, it must first answer a simple question: what exactly is the problem it seeks to solve? Government undoubtedly has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure safety, but any regulation introduced to achieve those objectives must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of passing the test of constitutional scrutiny.The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. While many passengers may find sermons in commercial vehicles or sales pitches irritating, annoyance alone should not be sufficient reason to criminalise activities that touch directly on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. If the government is determined to regulate what happens inside commercial buses, it must first answer a simple question: what exactly is the problem it seeks to solve? Government undoubtedly has a responsibility to maintain public order and ensure safety, but any regulation introduced to achieve those objectives must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of passing the test of constitutional scrutiny.The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The question that has refused to leave my mind since Thursday is whether the proposal does not amount to an infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and, to some extent, freedom of movement.I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. I am aware that it can rightly be argued that no right is absolute and that restrictions are permissible where they serve legitimate public interests. However, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society. Can this blanket prohibition truly be justified? Is criminalisation not an excessive response to the perceived problem?There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. There are also serious questions surrounding the real rationale behind the proposed ban. The principal justification advanced by lawmakers is that preaching and hawking inside commercial buses distract drivers. What I do not know is whether this conclusion was based on empirical evidence, complaints from drivers themselves or merely on general observation.While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. While the argument may not necessarily apply to preachers, I know from my experience of riding molue buses in Lagos in those days that many bus drivers actually welcomed hawkers because of the informal benefits they enjoyed from them. Hawkers often gave drivers what they jokingly called “complimentary copies” of whatever they were selling before alighting to board another vehicle. It was almost an unwritten understanding between both parties. A similar arrangement exists in many interstate transport operations where drivers deliberately stop at designated restaurants because they enjoy free meals provided by the owners in exchange for bringing passengers there. These practices have existed for decades without attracting legislative attention.Related NewsUganda crash: ATC urges stricter safety for school excursionsNigeria’s road to godlessnessSenate panel clears Lamido Yuguda as AMCON board chairIf driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. If driver distraction is truly the issue, I honestly wonder whether preaching or hawking constitutes the greatest source of distraction on Nigerian roads. What about speeding, the use of mobile phones while driving, alcohol consumption, drug abuse, reckless overtaking, mechanical defects, driver fatigue, overloading and poor road conditions, among several others? Should these not receive far greater enforcement priority if the real objective is to reduce road crashes and save lives?Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Apart from driver distraction, if the proposal is actually driven by concerns about passenger discomfort, traffic management, noise pollution, security or any other consideration, then the government owes Nigerians a much clearer explanation. Public policy is better accepted when citizens understand not only what the government intends to do but also why it considers such action necessary.As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. As for hawking, it presents a somewhat different conversation. I readily acknowledge that hawking inside commercial buses can inconvenience passengers. It can obstruct movement, prolong loading time and, in some cases, become intrusive. However, many hawkers survive because unemployment remains unacceptably high. Criminalising their activities without providing realistic economic alternatives may only worsen the hardship that many families are already facing. It would amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. There is also the religious sensitivity surrounding the proposed amendment. Nigeria is an intensely religious country. Any provision that affects preaching will inevitably affect Christian evangelism as well as Islamic exhortations in commercial vehicles. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has already begun generating tension, with some religious organisations expressing strong reservations. Ironically, a proposal introduced in the name of reducing distractions is itself becoming a major national distraction. Government should therefore tread very carefully.Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Instead of imposing what amounts to a blanket ban, I believe sensible regulation would be a far better option. The use of loudspeakers can be restricted. Authorities can limit prolonged preaching, prevent the harassment of unwilling passengers, enforce existing safety standards and ensure that drivers remain focused on the road. Such measures would address genuine concerns without unnecessarily infringing on fundamental freedoms.There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. There is also the danger of the slippery slope. If preaching is criminalised today, will political discussions inside buses be next? What becomes of public health awareness campaigns, charity appeals or other forms of public communication that have traditionally taken place in commercial vehicles? Government must be careful not to establish dangerous precedents that could gradually erode civil liberties. Authorities certainly have the responsibility to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. I acknowledge that rights have limits. Nevertheless, any restriction must be necessary, reasonable, evidence-based and constitutionally defensible.Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Every society has a duty to maintain order and promote public safety, but it must do so without unnecessarily trampling on fundamental freedoms. If the real concern is road safety, then the government should confront the proven causes of road accidents—reckless driving, speeding, alcohol and drug abuse, driver fatigue, poor vehicle maintenance, mechanical failures and weak law enforcement—rather than create the impression that preaching or hawking is the nation’s biggest transportation challenge.Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Regulation may well be necessary where passengers are harassed, or drivers are genuinely distracted, but a total ban, particularly one backed by criminal sanctions, should always be the last resort, not the first. Nigeria must be careful not to sacrifice constitutional liberties in pursuit of solutions to problems that have not even been clearly defined. A democratic society is measured not only by how effectively it maintains order but also by how faithfully it protects the rights and freedoms of its citizens.