Road traffic crashes and challenges of underdevelopment in Nigeria

Road traffic crash (RTC) is a tax on the economy.Studies have shown that there is direct linkage betweenthe crashes and the worsening poverty rates in low-andmiddle-income countries, caused by diversion of scarceresources from the productive sectors to care for crashaftereffects.

To mitigate the debilitating impact ofRTCs, there is a need to evaluate the socio-economicconsequences, consider the costs and benefits ofalternative measures, and develop strategies forreducing the frequency.

Reducing crash rates in Nigeria comes with enormouschallenges. These include paucity of country-specificdata for measuring the burden, under or insufficientcrash reporting, and lack of system-wide studies andindices for valuating the costs in monetary terms. Onthe costs-valuation challenge, Nigeria relies on genericreports by multi-national organisations and a mixedpatch of weak, outdated, and recycled statistics, andends up with mere guesstimation. The capacity gapdeprives her of the tools for assessing the true socio-economic impact of RTCs.

This analysis is not meant to fill the capacity gap but tocontribute to the discourse on the costs of RTCs toNigeria and highlight issues to guide policymakers informulating effective remediative measures.

RTC is a leading cause of death worldwide; it claimsmore than 1.19 million lives annually. This figurerepresents 3,300 road deaths per day, or two lives lostevery minute. In addition to the death count, another 50million people suffer crash- related injuries every year.

RTCs affect a peoples’ economic well-being. Theaftermaths include common costs like medicalexpenses, property damage, loss of productivecapacity, and administrative expenses. Generally, theseimpacts are financially quantifiable and are borne bythe victims, their families and the society.

Majority of RTCs occur in low-and-middle incomecountries. With roughly 60% of the world’s motorvehicles, these countries suffer 92% of global fatalities,and the most disproportionately affected are the poor,children, and young adults aged between 5 and 29years.

RTC is the fourth leading cause of death in people aged5-44 in Africa. Over 75% of the casualties are in theyoung and economically productive age groups of 16-65, with the most vulnerable road users beingpedestrians, vehicle passengers and low- motorisedvehicle operators like motorcyclists and cyclists. Thesevictims constitute 65% of the fatalities and bear theheaviest burden of the carnage.

Globally, the socio-economic cost of RTCs is estimatedat US$518 billion or 3% of annual GDP. For Africa, theloss is between 1% and 5% of GDP, and for Nigeria, itis estimated variably as N80 billion and N800 billion.

Nigeria’s estimated loss of N80 billion and N800billion is not supportable by contemporary factors. Onereason for the skepticism is that the N80 billionprojection, for instance, has been floated since about2010. It fails to account for inflation or the 2024rebasing of the economy to accurately reflect currentrealities and adjust to structural changes.

Another reason that the figures are untenable is theincreasing RTCs in the country. Nigeria is witnessingan upsurge in crash rates. The rate rose to 10,446 in2025 from 9,570 in 2024, for a year-over-year increaseof 9.2%. These worsening statistics should dictatecommensurate new analyses and conclusions.

Furthermore, an independent study shows that theFederal Capital Territory (FCT) alone lost N534.9b(approx. $1.2billion) to RTCs in 2022. Although theFCT is a hot zone of crashes, which explains the high-cost finding, it is nonetheless a microcosm of theNigerian road crash realities. If the result of the studywere extrapolated and prior assumptions supplementedwith current country-wide or sector-specific data, theoutcome would be significantly higher than N80 billionand N800 billion.

Most importantly, the N80 billion and N800 billionbills is not defensible by the country’s RTC Cost: GDPratio. Nigeria recorded $285 billion GDP (equivalent toN122.81 trillion) in 2025. That is a 3.87% year-over-year real growth from 2024. It is estimated that sheloses 3% of her annual GDP to RTCs. 3% loss onN122.81 trillion is N3.68 trillion. In other words, theprojected loss to traffic crashes in 2025 would beN3.68 trillion, which figure is consistent with thefindings of the independent FCT study.

Not to be overlooked is that with the loss of 3% on3.87% GDP growth from 2024, the net or disposablegrowth for 2025 is 0.87%. This ties in with the linkagebetween RTCs and worsening poverty rates in low-andmiddle-income countries.

GDP loss to RTC does not necessarily result ineconomic shrinkage. Despite the negative connotation,road crashes are likely to generate activities andtranslate to gains in the healthcare, auto repair, andother sectors, and increase growth in those areas of theeconomy. However, the derivative employmentgeneration is at an opportunity cost to the countrybecause it competes for resources with other activitieswhere the resources could otherwise be moreproductively utilised.

To understand the social-economic consequences ofRTCs, it is necessary to identify the invisible waste ornon-value-adding activities that consume resources anddrive the costs.

Results have shown that RTCs trigger more injuriesthan deaths, and RTC-related injuries exert moreburden on the economy than fatalities. In addition to common costs, there are other economic burdens ofRTC fatalities. These are usually of a one-off nature,like interment expenses and discretionary burial rites.On the other hand, injuries would have more lastingimpacts like diminished productive capacity,rehabilitation, long-term care, assistive living andreduction in the quality of life and life expectancy.

Despite the prevalence and more serious impacts ofRTC injuries, analyses and reports tend to focus moreon fatality rates. Meanwhile, the plight of injuredsurvivors is exacerbated by a lot of factors.

Nigeria’s healthcare delivery system is substandard,and the facilities are ill- equipped. The sick and theinjured are forced to patronise unorthodox practitionersin search of speculative cures. This complicates orworsens their health condition and imposes additionaleconomic burden on them. The injured may also haveto employ private caregivers and divert resources ofable-bodied family members who could, if otherwiseproductively employed, contribute more meaningfullyto the economy.

Nigeria lacks established social programmes for RTCsurvivors. The only programme with seemingness ofsocial welfare, the National Social Insurance TrustFund, is a contributory scheme that compensates forwork-related accidents and injuries. It does not coverRTC injuries per se.

The society has low tolerance for the physicallydisabled and treats their infirmity as if it werecontagious and an object of derision. Any injuries,including from RTCs, could qualify the survivors assubhuman and create a fit problem for them. This isworsened by the influx of disabled and destitutepersons into Nigerian cities from neighbouringcountries, which creates competition for governmentresources that might otherwise be available to RTCsurvivors. Some of the destitutes have so constitutedthemselves into nuisance that many Nigerians havebecome inert to the plight of the disabled and the lessprivileged. This creates difficulties in reintegratinginjured crash survivors into the society’s psyche.

The law prohibiting discrimination against personswith disabilities requires that Nigerian roads and otherpublic facilities be accessibility-friendly to fullyintegrate and enable affected persons to resume theirnormal life as much as possible and contributemeaningfully to the society. Designated to go into fulleffect five years after the passage, now more thanseven years after the commencement date, it is no moreefficacious than before its passage and is moreobserved in the breach.

Less commonly discussed is the gender bias or residualsocio-economic effect of RTCs against the females.Most of the reported RTC survivors are men, butwomen bear much of the burden and spend more timeon nursing and homecare for the injured loved ones.This puts a lot of strain on the females and limits theiropportunity for personal advancement and economicproductivity.

The cumulative socio-economic loss by RTC survivorsincludes diminished social status, and loss of jobs andability to be gainfully employed at a higher rate thanthe non-disabled. As a result, they live with a sense ofdiminished self-worth and withdraw from socialactivities. The cost implication of this is deeper than itmay appear. Nigeria’s economy is driven bysubsistence farming and small-scale businesses. Adisabled person’s loss of job, or inability to return towork or to be gainfully employed, translates into lossof patronage for the local economy, thereby reducingthe country’s GDP. If the RTC survivor were thebreadwinner, this would affect the family’s finances,and standard of living and life expectations.

With a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 population, Nigeria hasone of the highest rates of road traffic deaths in Africa.Despite the alarming statistics, the government’sresponse to RTCs is tepid compared to its reaction toother calamities with less socio-economic andnumerical impacts on the society.

When COVID-19 pandemic ravaged Nigeria beginningfrom 2020, the government recognised the virus as anexistential threat to the country and institutedextraordinary measures to suppress the spread. Itdeclared a state of national emergency, put the countryon lockdown, suspended non-essential activities, closedthe borders, and restricted inter-state travels. Thearchitecture for combating the pandemic was built fromscratch. Most importantly, to contain the virus, thegovernment mobilised and spent limitless resources,human and financial, including extra-budgetaryspending and external borrowings.

The same urgency is being mobilised to combatterrorism, another crisis afflicting the country. In thiscase, the government adopted a multi-prongedapproach, reengineered military capabilities andpartnered with foreign governments and localvigilantes in the battle. It spends billions of Nairaannually, including, again, extra-budgetary funding, toacquire weapons and deployed every policy andpolitical suasion possible in the process.

While not minimising the devastating consequences ofthe pandemic and banditry, the reality is that morepeople die every year on Nigerian roads than lose theirlives to these causes. Comparing road traffic crash tothe twin scourges of COVID-19 and terrorism mayseem pedantic, but statistics do not lie. BetweenFebruary 27, 2020,

when COVID-19 was first detected in Nigeria, and theend of October 2023, the country lost 3,155 to thepandemic. The number of people killed in terroristattacks is difficult to track, but it is reported thatbetween 2023 and 2024, 950 people were killednationwide. The figures compare to 6456 deaths and38,930 injuries from 13,656 RTCs in 2022.

RTC statistics should prompt the government intorecognising it as a pandemic at par with COVID-19and terrorism and mustering the same resources andpolitical will for addressing the crashes as with theother crises.  Instead, road safety management hasbecome a mere budgetary item without any renewedvigour in battling it.

Nigerian road users, on their own, have a role to play inmitigating the debilitating socio-economicconsequences of RTCs. The people lack a culture ofinsuring against catastrophic events like personal injuryand disability that could cushion their plight. Rather,they wrap themselves in divine insurance with nopalliative value, the “I reject it syndrome”, a belief thatwishes or prays away risks of adversities. In the eventof injuries, they are left without medical or financialrecourse.

Similarly, Nigerians fail to appreciate the usefulness ofthe vehicle insurance system. Many view the autoinsurance environment as another revenue toll onmotorists. Motorists take out auto insurance policiesnot to indemnify against loss, but supposedly tocomply with the law and obtain proof of compliance toexhibit to road traffic law enforcement officers. In theevent of collision, they resort to fist cuffs rather thanclaim for indemnity.

Alarmingly, road users, including motorists, are notaware that they are party to auto insurance contracts orof their benefits thereunder and rarely claim forindemnity under the policies.

There is a general belief in the country that theinsurance practice and claim processes are elitist,burdensome, and  rigged against the common man.This perception feeds the narrative that the industry is abehemoth that could get away with wrongful claimsdenial at will. As a result, the beneficiaries, includinginsured road users, fail to exploit possible indemnity on the occurrence of insured risk.

The beneficiaries of road-user ignorance and apathy arethe insurance companies. There is no incentive forthem to educate the public on the efficacy of thepolicies, the claims process, or entitlements. Theycapitalise instead on public ignorance and mindset toreap hefty rewards because non-claimed benefits endup as hefty balance sheet items for them.

Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act, 2025 updatedthe Road Accident Victims Compensation Fund torecompense victims of uninsured RTCs and healthcareproviders for up to N2,000,000.00 for costs andexpenses incurred in respect of death or bodily injury.The fund is funded by 0.5% of the underwriting profiton motor insurance business. The fund is currentlyunderutilised because road users do not appear to beaware of the benefits under the scheme, and eventhough putative beneficiaries, they continue to bear the burden of their uninsured loss.

There is a need for education on injury and disabilityinsurance generally, and road- user rights andentitlement to insurance benefits. The insuranceindustry can be part of the solution to the lowinformation regime by educating the public on thebenefits of insurance. The educating can be fundedwholly or partially by clawing back and returning partof the funding mechanisms for the VictimsCompensation Fund to the insurance companies with amandate to apply the savings to the education. Thesuggestion that insurance companies be responsible foreducating the public is only reasonable because itwould engender competing approaches and forestall themoney being compromised by committees ofbureaucrats.

With the ever-increasing RTCs, Nigeria should beconcerned about their debilitating effect on theeconomy as measured against the GDP. Measuring inthis context presupposes a common matrix forcomparing the two indicants, that is, the RTC and theGDP. But GDP is denominated in monetary values, andRTC statistical indices are reported in numerical terms.This necessitates that RTC costs be expressed inmonetary terms to enable comparison. Doing sorequires protocols for monetising RTC drivers, whichprotocol or wherewithal Nigeria presently lacks.

Granted, studies have been conducted to measure thefinancial burden of RTCs in monetary terms, but thesample size is grossly inadequate, and the mechanism

adopted, the willingness-to-pay method, is adjudgedimproper for a low-and middle-income-country likeNigeria.

Assigning monetary value to the social and economicimpact of RTCs would reinforce in graphic detail howmuch waste the carnage inflicts on the country and thepotential cost-savings of better driving behaviours. Forthe government, it should demonstrate the potentialreturns, investing on safer roads could accrue to thenation and provide incentives to seriously combatRTCs by prioritising resources and investingadequately in safer roads management in line with itsnational and international commitments.

There is a need, therefore, for systems-wide studies andindices for determining the monetary costs of RTCs tothe Nigerian economy. Failing to do so, the situationwould continue to spiral recurrently on a worseningtrajectory.

By: Alimi O. Adamu, Esq.1

×