Fake MOT Operatives or Convenient Excuses? The Hard Questions We Are Refusing to Ask

The recent flood of videos alleging the activities of fake Ministry of Transport (MOT) operatives has understandably generated outrage. If individuals are indeed impersonating government officials to extort motorists, they deserve swift investigation, arrest, and prosecution. There can be no justification for criminal elements exploiting citizens under the guise of law enforcement.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

But beneath the emotional reactions lies another conversation that many seem unwilling to have.

A closer look at virtually every video currently circulating reveals a pattern that should concern us just as much as the allegations against the operatives themselves.

In each case, the vehicle stopped had committed an observable traffic violation. Whether it was driving against traffic, illegal parking, lack of proper documentation, disobeying traffic signs, or other offences, the motorists were not randomly selected. They had first broken the law.

More interestingly, the immediate reaction of many of the apprehended drivers was not to insist on being taken to the appropriate government office for proper processing. Instead, they began negotiating with the operatives on the roadside.

That should make every responsible citizen pause.

If a motorist genuinely believes the people stopping them are fake officials, why negotiate with them? Why not reject every roadside discussion and demand to be taken to the authorised office where identities, offences, and procedures can be properly verified?

The uncomfortable truth is that roadside negotiation has become so deeply normalised that many citizens instinctively resort to it, even while later complaining about extortion. In trying to avoid official procedures, some inadvertently empower the very corruption they later condemn.

This raises an even bigger question.

When someone breaks a traffic law and another person allegedly attempts to exploit that violation illegally, does one wrong automatically erase the other?

The answer is no.

A fake operative remains a criminal. A traffic offender remains a traffic offender. One offence does not cancel out the other.

Unfortunately, public conversations often reduce complex situations into simplistic narratives of heroes and villains. Every enforcement encounter becomes “government harassment,” while every traffic violation is quietly ignored. That selective outrage does little to improve our roads or our institutions.

Perhaps the bigger issue is not merely fake operatives. Perhaps it is our collective relationship with the rule of law.

Why do we consistently look for shortcuts?

Why is compliance often treated as optional until enforcement begins?

Why is negotiation on the roadside considered a normal alternative to lawful procedures?

Societies that enjoy orderly roads are not built solely by disciplined enforcement agencies. They are built by citizens who voluntarily obey traffic regulations, insist on due process, refuse illegal negotiations, and report misconduct through proper channels backed by credible evidence.

None of this excuses misconduct by enforcement officers. Every verified case of extortion, impersonation, abuse of authority, or unlawful enforcement should be thoroughly investigated and decisively punished. Accountability must apply to public officials just as it applies to citizens.

But accountability cannot be selective.

As citizens, we also have obligations. Learn the traffic laws. Obey them. Avoid placing yourself in situations where enforcement becomes necessary. If stopped, refuse roadside negotiations. Request that every matter be handled through the authorised office. Document any misconduct and report it through the appropriate channels with clear evidence.

Perhaps the real reform Nigeria needs is not only better enforcement, but a better civic culture.

Because in the end, fake operatives thrive where citizens expect to negotiate, shortcuts flourish where compliance is optional, and disorder persists when everyone wants the other person to obey the law first.

The rule of law cannot be built on selective morality. It begins with all of us.