Bright Simons questions TraffiTech-GH’s enforcement framework, warns of camera abuse and unlawful penalties

The Honorary Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, has raised concerns about aspects of the TraffiTech-GH system, warning that its enforcement mechanisms could be abused and that some of the penalties being proposed may lack legal backing.

He says the system relies on dedicated traffic cameras, mobile cameras in unmarked vehicles and speed guns, cautioning against the assumption that all surveillance cameras installed across the country are connected to the traffic enforcement initiative.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, November 7, Mr Simons explained that most cameras motorists see on the streets are linked to national security and other law enforcement operations rather than TraffiTech-GH.

“TrafficTech is not automatically integrated into all the security cameras that you see around,” he said.

He added that the initiative also deploys mobile cameras and speed guns that can be moved to different locations depending on identified traffic hotspots.

While describing the flexibility as useful for detecting traffic violations, he warned that the discretion to relocate the equipment could also create opportunities for abuse.

“The fact that they can move their cameras around to make a detection, that can be done very sensibly. But it can also be heavily abused,” he cautioned.

Mr Simons further outlined how the system identifies alleged offenders, explaining that it depends on the ability to capture vehicle registration numbers accurately and match them against records held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA).

Under the arrangement, he said, traffic violation notices are sent to the registered owners of vehicles through SMS, giving them 14 days to pay through USSD or contest the offence.

However, he questioned the reliability of making vehicle owners liable for offences committed by other drivers, particularly where registration details may be inaccurate or compromised.

He also raised concerns about the additional penalties associated with failure to pay fines, including a reported daily 1 per cent surcharge and possible restrictions on licence renewal, vehicle registration and roadworthiness certification.

According to him, the legal basis for imposing some of these additional sanctions remains unclear.

“There is very little in the law that allows them to impose these additional penalties, but they've gone ahead anyway and claim that these are penalties that are potentially possible,” he said.

On the scope of the initiative, Mr Simons noted that its current enforcement focus is on speeding, although the broader system is expected to cover several other traffic offences.

He argued that if the system is intended to address all forms of road indiscipline, concentrating on speeding alone represents a limited intervention.

He explained that Ghana has identified between 40 and 47 traffic offences for the broader enforcement framework, but the current focus on speeding means only a fraction of the problem is being addressed.

He cautioned, however, that the contribution of speeding to road crashes and traffic indiscipline must be established through research rather than assumptions.

Mr Simons also challenged the argument that the system should be allowed to operate without extensive scrutiny on the grounds that it is better to start imperfectly and improve along the way.

While agreeing that no public intervention can be perfected before implementation, he said Ghana's difficulty has been its failure to make the necessary improvements after launching policies.

“The problem with our catatonic arrangements is that we don't improve. And because the only way you improve is if you tolerate scrutiny, you tolerate criticism,” he said.

He maintained that public institutions must be willing to subject their initiatives to independent examination and criticism to identify weaknesses and improve implementation.

His comments come amid growing debate over TraffiTech-GH, which became operational on November 1, 2026, following several delays in its rollout.

The technology-driven initiative is intended to improve road safety and enforce traffic regulations through automated monitoring, but its implementation has attracted questions about the legal framework for penalties, the liability of vehicle owners and the fairness of enforcement.