Michael Essien Foundation

Sunday Morning Musings: Automated Traffic Enforcement in Ghana I have often used examples of automated traffic enforcement elsewhere to challenge the argument that citizen behaviour is responsible for some of Ghana’s problems. If you know there is a speed camera at an intersection, you are less likely to speed. So Ghana’s adoption of automated traffic enforcement is a good idea. But the details matter. I spent some time looking through the publicly available information on the initiative, Traffitech-GH. It is an 11-year public-private partnership signed in 2022 between the Government of Ghana and a Ghanaian company with Swedish shareholders. The estimated project cost is 78 million cedis, with revenue shared 60:40 between govt and the private partner. That revenue-sharing arrangement caught my attention. When a system designed to penalise people also generates revenue for those operating it, there is a risk that the incentive shifts from improving road safety to issuing more fines. The more fines collected, the more both parties earn. Sensys Gatso, the Swedish shareholder, has told its investors that the operating company expects tens of millions of dollars in revenue over the remaining years of the contract. The company needs fines to flow to recover its investment. That is not a criticism of the company. This is why the rules on speed limits and camera locations matter. If the objective is road safety, drivers should know the applicable speed limits and where cameras are located. That encourages them to slow down. If the objective is revenue, keeping drivers uncertain can be more profitable. The Police FAQ raises some concerns. Drivers are expected to know the speed limit even where there are no signs, and the Police are not required to warn motorists that a camera is ahead. One speed-limit category applies wherever “human activity is predominant”, without clearly defining what that means. Taken together, a driver could receive a fine on a road without a posted speed limit, from a camera they could not see, in an area whose applicable speed-limit category is unclear. There are also questions about the appeals process. Notices are sent by SMS, and the 14-day payment period runs from the date the notice is issued, not when it is received. After that, a 1% daily surcharge applies, with no published cap. Drivers must first approach the Police to contest a ticket before taking the matter to court. None of this proves the system will be abused. But these arrangements make it easier to issue fines and harder to challenge them, within a contract where more fines mean more revenue. Uganda is an interesting example. It suspended its automated traffic enforcement system days after its launch last year following widespread complaints about high penalties and low speed limits. The system has yet to return. Ghana is already seeing pushback from transport unions. One concern is that enforcing rules around designated bus stops could penalise drivers for something beyond their control. Traders occupy some of these stops, forcing drivers to find alternative places to pick up and drop off passengers. If automated enforcement is genuinely about road safety, I would suggest a few things: - Enforce speed limits only on roads with clearly posted limits and adequate warning signs. - Publish camera locations alongside the crash data justifying their deployment. - Establish an independent appeals process outside the Police. - Publish quarterly data on crashes, injuries and fines so the public can assess whether the system is working. Automated enforcement can save lives in Ghana. But if the system makes more money when drivers are caught off guard, it will struggle to earn public trust and may fail to change behaviour in the way it should.