TRAFFITEC-GH: The Good, the Bad and What Could Be

Ghana’s roads need discipline, our drivers need guidance, and our road safety institutions need the courage to enforce the law fairly. Against this background, TRAFFITEC-GH, the proposed technology-driven traffic enforcement initiative, presents an opportunity to improve road safety, strengthen accountability and modernise how traffic offences are detected and addressed.

But there is a fundamental truth about public policy: a good idea is only as good as the system that delivers it. Technology can help enforce the law, but it cannot compensate for poor road markings, missing speed-limit signs, dysfunctional traffic lights or inadequate public education. Neither can it replace fairness, transparency and common sense.

As Ghana prepares to embrace a more technology-driven approach to traffic enforcement, we must welcome the promise while asking the difficult questions. The objective should not simply be to catch more motorists. It should be to make our roads safer, our institutions more credible and our citizens better informed.

The Good: A Necessary Step Towards Modern Enforcement

The attraction of automated traffic enforcement is obvious. Properly designed systems can detect speeding, red-light violations and other specified offences with greater consistency than manual enforcement alone. They can reduce opportunities for roadside bribery, create digital evidence and help authorities identify dangerous driving patterns.

There is also a potential economic benefit. Road crashes impose enormous costs on families, businesses, emergency services and the national economy. If technology helps prevent collisions, saves lives and reduces avoidable congestion, its value will extend far beyond the revenue collected from penalties.

More importantly, automated enforcement can establish a culture in which drivers understand that compliance is expected everywhere, not merely where a police officer happens to be standing.

However, TRAFFITEC-GH must be judged by measurable improvements in road safety, not by the number of tickets issued or the amount of money collected. A successful system should ultimately produce safer driving, fewer crashes and greater public confidence.

That is the real prize.
The Bad: Enforcement Cannot Run Ahead of Road Readiness

Here is where the conversation becomes less comfortable.

A camera can detect that a vehicle is travelling at 80 kilometres per hour. But is that stretch of road properly signposted? Is the speed limit clearly visible? Has the road been designed to support that limit safely? Are temporary restrictions, roadworks and diversions properly indicated?

These are not excuses for reckless driving. They are questions of fairness and sound administration.

A motorist should not be expected to guess a speed limit, just as a football referee cannot reasonably punish a player for breaking a rule that was never properly communicated. The law remains the law, but effective enforcement requires clarity.

The same concern applies to traffic lights. Where signals are defective, poorly maintained or completely non-functional, automated enforcement at affected junctions risks creating confusion and disputes. Drivers may be confronted with conflicting instructions from road markings, officers, damaged signals and the movement of other vehicles.

And what happens at night when streetlights are not working? Visibility deteriorates, road markings become harder to see, pedestrians are less visible, and poorly illuminated signs become almost decorative. If enforcement equipment continues operating in such conditions, authorities must be able to demonstrate that the evidence is reliable and that the applicable rules were clear.

The solution is not to suspend traffic laws whenever infrastructure fails. Rather, authorities must establish procedures for identifying defective junctions, suspending or adjusting automated enforcement where necessary, and urgently repairing the infrastructure.

Technology must enforce a properly functioning road system, not expose the weaknesses of a neglected one.

The Scam Before the System
Perhaps the most troubling development is that fraudsters have reportedly begun exploiting public interest in TRAFFITECH-GH even before its full rollout.

The scheme is straightforward and sinister: impersonate an official institution, mimic a DVLA-related website, circulate messages claiming that motorists have committed offences, and persuade unsuspecting recipients to pay fabricated fines. The advertised commencement date creates urgency, and urgency is a scammer's favourite business partner.

The Ghana Police Service has published official guidance warning that genuine Electronic Notices of Violation should carry the sender identification GPS-MTTD. It also warns motorists against suspicious messages containing clickable links and directs them to the government's official payment platform.

This warning deserves nationwide publicity.

The police, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), the National Road Safety Authority and the Cyber Security Authority should coordinate an aggressive public alert campaign. Fraudulent domains must be identified, reported and taken down promptly, while investigations should pursue those responsible.

The public must also be told, repeatedly, that a convincing logo does not make a website genuine, a vehicle registration number does not prove a ticket is authentic, and an alarming SMS is not a court judgment.

Motorists should never pay a traffic fine through a personal Mobile Money number or an unfamiliar payment link. They should verify suspicious notices through official channels and report suspected fraud to the police.

If criminals can impersonate the enforcement system before it is fully operational, public education must address not only traffic offences but also digital fraud. Otherwise, an initiative designed to promote road discipline could inadvertently create a new market for organised deception.

Education Before Punishment, Not Instead of It

The decision to postpone the initial October 1 rollout to November 1, 2026, to allow additional public education was sensible.

It recognises an important principle: citizens must understand a system before they can reasonably be expected to navigate its procedures confidently.

But education must go beyond press conferences, radio interviews and official statements.

The Police Service should partner with driving schools, transport unions, commercial drivers, motorbike riders, schools, churches, traditional authorities and the media to explain the offences, applicable penalties, notification procedures and appeal mechanisms. Information should be available in accessible language, including Ghanaian languages, and should reach drivers who do not regularly use smartphones or the internet.

Motorists must also understand that receiving a notice does not remove their right to challenge an alleged offence. The process should be straightforward, affordable and transparent.

The remaining days before November 1 should therefore be used intensively. If operational readiness, public understanding or infrastructure conditions prove inadequate at particular locations, authorities should consider a phased approach rather than allowing a national deadline to override practical realities.

A stronger implementation in 2027 may be achievable if the closing months of 2026 are used to identify weaknesses, repair infrastructure, test procedures and build public confidence. That is not an argument for abandoning enforcement. It is an argument for getting it right.

What Must Change for TRAFFITECH-GH to Work

Five practical measures deserve immediate attention.

1. Audit the roads. Inspect every enforcement corridor and relevant junction for functioning traffic lights, visible speed-limit signs, clear road markings, adequate lighting and properly maintained road signs. Publish a schedule for correcting defects.

2. Guarantee accuracy. Maintain human verification of captured evidence, reliable equipment calibration, secure records and independent audits. Every notice should identify the alleged offence, time, location (Not just GPS co-ordinates), vehicle and applicable penalty.

3. Protect motorists' rights. Provide accessible channels to view evidence, challenge errors, correct vehicle ownership records and obtain timely decisions. False penalties must be withdrawn promptly.

4. Fight fraud aggressively. Publish verified official channels, work with telecommunications companies to flag impersonation attempts, and prosecute offenders. Public warnings should be repeated throughout the rollout.

5. Measure the right outcomes. Report on crashes, injuries, compliance, system errors, successful appeals and infrastructure repairs. Transparency will help the public distinguish a safety programme from a revenue-collection exercise.

These measures require coordination among the Police Service, DVLA, the National Road Safety Authority, road authorities, local assemblies and the relevant cybersecurity institutions.

The Verdict: Good Idea, Better Execution

TRAFFITEC-GH has the potential to improve road safety, but its success depends on effective execution, public education, sound infrastructure and institutional accountability. Political loyalty should never replace objective scrutiny, just as opposition should not dismiss a potentially beneficial initiative. Enforcement must be firm but fair, transparent and accessible. Ultimately, success should be measured not by fines issued, but by lives saved and accidents prevented. The cameras may watch the roads, but creating safer roads remains a shared responsibility.