|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Claim: Chief Inspector Frempong Ayeh of the Ghana Police Service has claimed that motorists who challenge a traffic violation ticket issued under Traffitech-GH will face an additional penalty if investigations establish that they committed the offence.
Verdict: False. DUBAWA’s investigations showed that the law allowing motorists to challenge an alleged traffic offence does not provide for an additional fine if a motorist is found liable. However, it provides for a late-payment penalty where a motorist fails to pay within the stipulated period.
Full Text
A police officer with the Ghana Police Service’s Motor Traffic and Transport Department (MTTD), Chief Inspector Frempong Ayeh, said motorists who contact the Directorate to challenge a traffic violation ticket issued under Traffitech-GH could face an additional penalty if investigations establish they committed the offence.
“If you contact MTTD to dispute a Traffitech violation and an investigation establishes that you actually committed it, you will face an additional penalty,” he said in Twi in a video uploaded by Facebook user AsomdweheneTV GH.
Chief Inspector Ayeh, the MTTD station officer at Akyem Oda, commented while educating residents on the introduction of automated road traffic enforcement across the country through cameras, speed guns and other devices under the Traffitech-GH system.
According to the Ghana Police Service, Traffitech-GH is intended to promote road discipline, improve compliance with traffic regulations and reduce road crashes and their associated injuries.
His comments have generated debate on social media, with several users questioning the legal basis for imposing an additional penalty on motorists who exercise their right to challenge a traffic violation notice such as this, this, this, this, this, and this.
Some users questioned whether the police had the authority to impose such a penalty, while others argued that motorists should be allowed to contest alleged offences without being threatened with additional punishment.
As of Nov. 8, 2026, the original video posted by AsomdweheneTV GH on Nov. 4 had attracted more than 231 likes, six comments and 30 shares. A version shared by Accra-based GHOne TV on Nov. 5 had attracted more than 3,900 likes, 813 comments and 137 shares.
Commenting on the GHOne TV post, Ekow Asempa asked: “Is that supposed to be a threat?”
Another Facebook user, Normanyo Tetteh Amenyo, questioned the MTTD’s legal authority to determine punishment for a traffic offence, arguing that a court should decide the matter.
Exhibit Seidu also urged the police to learn from countries that have implemented similar automated traffic enforcement systems, arguing that motorists should be able to challenge alleged violations without facing an additional penalty simply for disputing the notice.
Against this background, DUBAWA examined the relevant legal provisions to establish whether Ghanaian law supports the Chief Inspector’s claim.
Verification
DUBAWA examined the Road Traffic Regulations, 2026 (L.I. 2519), particularly Regulation 242, which governs automated road traffic offences and fines.
Regulation 242 establishes the procedure for issuing Electronic Notices of Violation (ENVs) to motorists for specified traffic offences detected through automated enforcement devices.
Under Regulation 242(5), a motorist who receives an Electronic Notice of Violation must pay the stated fine through a designated payment channel within 14 days of the notice being issued.
However, the Regulations also provide an avenue for motorists who deny committing the alleged offence.
Regulation 242(11) states that, “Where a person denies committing an offence specified in the Ninth Schedule, a police officer or an authorised agent of the Police Service shall recommend the prosecution of that person by the Police Service in court.”
The provision identifies the prescribed legal course when a motorist disputes an alleged automated traffic offence, which is for the police officer to recommend prosecution in court.
It does not state that a motorist who challenges a ticket must be investigated and then fined again simply because the allegation is found to be true.
The Ghana Police Service’s own Traffitech-GH guidance also explains that motorists who disagree with an Electronic Notice of Violation may contest it online within 14 days.
The process involves selecting a preferred MTTD regional police station. Following the police station process, a court hearing is scheduled.
However, it is important to distinguish an additional penalty for challenging a ticket from a penalty the law imposes for failing to pay a fine on time.
Regulation 242(9) expressly provides that a person who fails to pay a fine within 14 days after receiving the Electronic Notice of Violation must, in addition to the original fine, pay a late-payment penalty of one per cent of the fine for each day of default.
That penalty arises from the failure to pay within the prescribed period, not simply from exercising the right to contest the alleged offence.
Furthermore, where a motorist denies committing an offence, Regulation 242(11) provides for prosecution in court. The court, rather than the mere act of challenging the ticket, is the forum for determining the alleged offence and the applicable legal consequences.
Any award of legal costs by a court is also distinct from an additional traffic fine. Such costs are matters for the court to determine under the applicable law and the circumstances of the proceedings.
Conclusion
DUBAWA’s findings establish that Chief Inspector Frempong Ayeh’s claim is false, as it suggests that a motorist will incur an additional fine simply for challenging a Traffitech-GH ticket and having the alleged offence confirmed. Regulation 242(11) of L.I. 2519 provides for prosecution in court where a motorist denies committing an offence.
