Olalekan Bakare-Oki (LASTMA’s General Manager)The recent announcement by the Lagos State Government to subject 18 motorists—caught driving against traffic—to psychiatric evaluation represents a welcome departure from the traditional punitive model of traffic enforcement. This move, initiated under the guidance of the General Manager of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA), Mr. Olalekan Bakare-Oki, suggests an important evolution in Nigeria’s public safety thinking: one that recognizes the mental and behavioral dimensions of civic misconduct.
It is a progressive gesture. It reflects an institutional willingness to look beyond the surface of road infractions and ask deeper questions: Why do people flout traffic laws so recklessly? What kinds of thought patterns or emotional disturbances lead to such life-threatening choices?
However, for this promising step to mature into meaningful reform, it must be guided by the correct professional lens. And that lens belongs not to psychiatry, but to clinical and forensic psychology.
Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Different Training, Different Missions
The frequent conflation of psychologists with psychiatrists remains one of the most persistent misunderstandings in Nigeria’s mental health space. While both disciplines address the mind, their methods, training, and purposes are profoundly different.
Psychiatrists are first and foremost medical doctors. In Nigeria, they typically complete a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree, followed by specialization in psychiatry. Their training is hospital-based and biologically oriented. They are equipped to diagnose and treat serious mental illnesses such as:
• Schizophrenia
• Bipolar disorder
• Major depressive episodes
• Psychotic breaks
• Neurological illnesses with psychiatric symptoms
Their tools are medical: medication, hospitalization, bloodwork, and crisis stabilization. Their concern is with chemical imbalances, neurological disruptions, and severe psychiatric breakdowns that threaten the safety or functioning of the individual and those around them.
That is not the context here.
Most traffic offenses—especially behaviors like driving against traffic, road rage, and deliberate rule-breaking—are not rooted in psychiatric illness. They emerge instead from a complex web of cognitive distortions, impulsivity, stress overload, antisocial conditioning, and moral disengagement.
These are not medical problems. They are behavioral dysfunctions, and they require the diagnostic and intervention skills of a clinical psychologist, not a psychiatrist.
What Clinical Psychologists Are Specifically Trained to Do
Clinical psychologists are trained at the doctoral level to assess and treat a wide range of psychological, emotional, and behavioral disorders without the use of medication. Their expertise spans a wide terrain of human functioning that includes—but is not limited to—the following:
Cognitive and Neuropsychological Testing: Assessing memory, attention span, information processing speed, and executive functioning—critical in evaluating whether a driver understood or processed rules and risks.
Personality and Emotional Regulation Assessment: Exploring whether the individual tends toward aggression, low empathy, entitlement, or emotional volatility under stress.
Impulse Control and Moral Reasoning Analysis: Determining whether poor self-control, narcissistic traits, or disregard for consequences are present.
Basic Literacy and Traffic Comprehension: Screening for reading, writing, and symbol recognition skills, which are often lacking in people who violate signage or one-way instructions.
Social Learning and Habitual Behavior Mapping: Evaluating how the offender’s actions may stem from repeated exposure to lawlessness in their environment—normalizing dangerous behavior through cultural modeling.
In conducting these assessments, clinical psychologists rely on standardized instruments, structured exercises, and psychometrically validated tools designed to measure behavior and functioning in objective, culturally appropriate ways. These may include cognitive tests (e.g., WAIS, TMT, Stroop), personality inventories (e.g., MMPI, PAI), moral judgment interviews, emotional functioning scales, and behavioral observation protocols. Each test is selected based on the referral concern and administered using established procedures to ensure fairness, accuracy, and replicability.
Where a psychiatrist might see “illness,” a psychologist sees patterns of behavior—and it is those patterns that must be decoded, understood, and restructured through non-medical, evidence-based intervention. The psychologist does not rush to label or medicate; instead, they work to understand what the behavior means, where it comes from, and how it can be corrected through cognitive, behavioral, and emotional retraining.
This professional approach—rooted in depth, structure, and science—is what makes clinical psychologists the appropriate lead experts in matters of traffic behavior and public risk evaluation.
When Substance Use or Physical Impairment Is Suspected—Let Medical Experts and Psychologists Lead, Not Psychiatry
When a traffic offender presents signs of disorientation, delayed response, reckless behavior, or cognitive confusion, it is appropriate to explore the possibility of underlying factors such as alcohol or drug use, visual or hearing impairments, or motor coordination issues. These may directly influence road behavior and decision-making.
In such cases, the clinical or forensic psychologist conducting the behavioral evaluation is fully authorized to initiate referrals for medical testing, which may include:
• Toxicology screening for alcohol, cannabis, or other substances (blood or urine)
• Vision tests by optometrists or ophthalmologists
• Hearing evaluations by audiologists or ENT specialists
• Reflex and neuromotor screenings by general practitioners or physiatrists
These tests must be conducted and interpreted by licensed medical professionals—not psychiatrists. Psychiatrists do not have the clinical mandate to supervise or validate sensory, toxicological, or physical functioning tests. Most importantly, the interpretation of these results must be provided in clear, concrete language, such as:
• “Ethanol concentration measured at 0.12%—exceeds legal driving limit.”
• “THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) detected at moderate levels—suggests recent cannabis use within 48 hours.”
• “Driver has 20/100 vision—unable to read signage from legal distance without corrective lenses.”
• “Hearing test confirms moderate bilateral loss—may impair response to road warnings.”
Once those results are available, the psychologist—whether working in private practice, government, or law enforcement—is fully licensed and professionally empowered to integrate these findings into a behavioral risk analysis. Written authorization from a psychiatrist is not required. Psychologists do not work under psychiatrists. Their scope of practice is independent and recognized both nationally and globally.
Where appropriate and in collaborative spirit, the psychologist may consult with a psychiatrist—but this is a peer-level exchange, not a hierarchical referral gate. The psychologist may consider psychiatric input in rare instances where serious mental illness is suspected (e.g., hallucinations, paranoia, or suicidal ideation). However, referral to psychiatry is not routine—it is reserved for cases requiring medical diagnosis or medication.
From the psychologist’s integrated review, a full list of actionable recommendations may follow, including:
• Driving suspension or restriction, based on behavioral and medical risk
• Referral to drug or alcohol counseling, when substance misuse is confirmed
• Corrective lenses, sensory aids, or physical therapy, when impairments are present
• Enrollment in behavioral interventions such as:
o Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
o Reality Therapy
o Anger management and self-control programs
o Stress regulation techniques
o Civic responsibility and rehabilitation education
Only when psychiatric illness is clinically evident does the psychologist make a formal referral to a psychiatrist.
But let us be absolutely clear: psychologists in Nigeria—whether in public institutions, law enforcement, hospitals, or private practice—do not require clearance or sign-off from a psychiatrist to conduct evaluations, offer therapy, or make public safety recommendations. Their professional license and scientific training fully authorize them to act within their scope.
This must be respected in policy and in practice.
Psychological work is not subordinate work. It is distinct, critical, and independently regulated. Public safety depends on ensuring that each profession operates within its rightful domain—with clarity, mutual respect, and no overreach.
A History of Marginalization—And a New Era of Recognition
For many years, Nigeria’s mental health landscape leaned heavily toward the psychiatric model. Psychology as a profession was underrepresented in public institutions, underutilized in policymaking, and misunderstood in both scope and capability. This was not always due to overt exclusion; sometimes it reflected a limited appreciation for the breadth of human behavior that psychology is designed to handle.
Today, that is changing.
Clinical psychology is now formally integrated into Nigeria’s Federal Civil Service system. Psychologists serve across hospitals, correctional services, rehabilitation centers, military installations, and community-based interventions. Their presence is growing in justice reform, education policy, and public health campaigns.
LASTMA’s bold step toward behavioral accountability must reflect this national progress. If we are addressing behavior, we must consult those trained to measure, interpret, and change behavior.
Reject the Familiar Excuse: “That’s for Other Countries”
A common refrain among some officials is to dismiss internationally recognized practices by saying, “That’s how they do it in other countries.” But such thinking, while comfortable, is a grave disservice to national growth.
If Mr. Bakare-Oki allows this thinking to guide his department’s next steps, then:
• He will be failing the very offenders he hopes to reform—by giving them the wrong tools.
• He will be failing himself as a modern public servant—by shrinking from innovation.
• He will be failing the Lagos State Government—by stalling institutional progress.
• And he will be failing Nigerian lives, which continue to be lost daily due to unassessed behavioral risk on our roads.
Good governance means courage. And courage means choosing accuracy over habit, truth over tradition, and the right expertise over the familiar option.
A Constructive Way Forward: Who LASTMA Should Consult
If LASTMA is committed to doing this right—and doing it well—there is an opportunity to engage directly with national psychological leadership.
I recommend that LASTMA consult:
Dr. Abubakar Musa Tafida (Ajiyan Awe)
President, Nigerian Psychological Association
Department of Psychology
Nasarawa State University, Keffi
Nasarawa State, Nigeria
Dr. Tafida is well-positioned to help LASTMA build a collaborative framework, grounded in behavioral science, and aligned with the ethical and institutional responsibilities of modern public safety reform.
Conclusion: Give Psychology Its Seat at the Table
Mr. Olalekan Bakare-Oki, your effort to address road behavior is bold and commendable. It reflects vision. But for that vision to produce results, it must be executed with professional accuracy.
Let psychiatrists intervene when there is evidence of medical crisis.
Let laboratories conduct toxicology when substances are in question.
But let psychologists take the lead when the task is to understand, evaluate, and transform human behavior.
This is not just about traffic. It’s about reforming the public mind. And that is a job for psychology.
