A System Designed to Corrupt - Questioning Zambia’s Motor Vehicle Roadworthiness Examination System

 

On paper, Zambia’s motor vehicle examination system appears functional. There is a Form, an Examiner, and a Final Decision – “Pass” or “Fail”. But beneath this procedural cloak, lies a troubling reality that I experienced today. The system, as currently structured, does not reliably measure motor vehicle roadworthiness or fitness.

The Examination Report for motor vehicle of trailers pursuant to the Road Traffic Act No. 11 of 2002 (Test Certificate Regulations), is not merely an administrative tool. It is the instrument through which road safety is decided. When that instrument is cockeyed, the consequences are not academic. They are measured in road accidents, mechanical failures, and preventable deaths.

At first glance, the examination report gives the impression of comprehensiveness. It lists major vehicle systems such as suspension, brakes, engine, tyres, and emissions. To the untrained eye, it appears complete, and something worthy breakdancing about. Unfortunately, this is simply a delusion of comprehensiveness. Each motor vehicle inspection category is unintelligibly broad, and operationally hollow.

Take, for example, item 8 the “Service Brake System.” This single line is expected to capture brake pad wear, hydraulic integrity, brake balance, and response time. This is not, inspection. It is compression of complexity into ambiguity. The absence of sub-components means that a vehicle with partially functioning brakes can pass, depending on who is inspecting it. This is not a minor technical oversight. It is undoubtedly a systemic failure.

At the heart of the problem lies the over-the-top level of discretion granted to the Examiner. The examination report provides no defined standards, no measurement thresholds, no scoring system, and no defect classification. The Examiner is not guided. They are empowered without constraint. In the end, subjective judgment or opinion based on a jaundiced eye replaces measurement and evidence.

Lest we forget. This clearly creates a system in which two Examiners can examine the same vehicle and reach entirely different conclusions. And both defensible, within the current framework of how motor vehicle roadworthiness is determined. Surely, this is not flexibility. It is institutionalised inconsistency.

Such unbounded discretion produces predictable consequences. The first is inconsistency. Vehicles are not judged against a uniform standard. They are judged according to who happens to be on duty. The second is the heightened risk of corruption. Where criteria are unclear and institutional decisions are discretionary, outcomes can become negotiable, the process becomes vulnerable to informal influence and manipulation.

The most serious consequence, however, is the risk to road safety. Vehicles that are objectively unsafe, can be certified as roadworthy. Not because the law permits it, but because the examination report fails to operationalise the law.

Equally concerning is what the examination report does not say. There is no explicit reference to prohibited vehicle modifications. There are no direct checks for tinted headlamps, unauthorised spotlights, altered suspension systems, excessive window tint, or modified exhausts. But one examiner will adopt an uncompromising approach, while another will simply smile and tick “pass”. These are not trivial matters. They directly affect visibility, vehicle control, and overall safety on the road.

Weirdly, the examination report, also, relies on vague categories such as “Statutory requirements” or “Any other defects”. This is not effective enforcement. It is delegation without accountability.

The inclusion of “Body cleanliness” and “Engine cleanliness” further exposes a troubling misalignment of priorities. A clean engine does not improve braking performance, and a polished body does not enhance steering control. Yet these are explicitly listed, while critical safety systems such as lighting, steering, and driver visibility are omitted. In my opinion, this reflects a system that, at least in part, confuses appearance with safety.

The Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA) is mandated to enforce vehicle safety under Zambian law. But enforcement requires more than legislation. It requires operationalisation of legal standards into clear, operational procedures. The examination report used for certification of motor vehicle roadworthiness, fails to perform this function. It does not define what constitutes a defect, does not require justification for failure, and does not provide measurable benchmarks. The result is a gap between law in theory and law in practice.

Reform, however, is neither complex nor unprecedented. What is required is a shift from generalisation to precision, from discretion to standardisation.

Every vehicle system must be broken down into testable components. Braking systems, for example, should be assessed in terms of pad thickness, fluid integrity, and brake balance. Tyres should be measured for tread depth and structural condition. Lighting systems should be tested for functionality, alignment, and compliance with regulatory standards.

Motor vehicle examination for roadworthiness must move away from the vague question of “Is it okay?” to the precise determination of whether it meets defined thresholds. A structured defect classification system should be introduced, distinguishing between minor defects, major defects, and dangerous defects. This would ensure consistency, transparency, and proportionality in decision-making.

Wherever possible, subjective judgment should be replaced with measurable testing. Brake efficiency testers, emission analysers, and tread depth gauges should become standard tools, ensuring that decisions are based on data rather than perception.

A dedicated section addressing unauthorised modifications must also be incorporated. Lighting alterations, suspension changes, tint levels, and exhaust modifications should be explicitly listed and assessed against clear legal standards.

Arguably, the current examination report does not merely fall short. It undermines the very purpose of vehicle inspection. It creates inconsistency, invites manipulation, and exposes the public to unnecessary risk.

Reform is not about improving paperwork. It is about restoring integrity to a safety-critical function. A roadworthiness certificate must mean one thing, and one thing only. That is, that the vehicle has been tested, measured, and proven safe. Not assumed safe, not declared safe, but demonstrably safe.

In hindsight, if the foregoing is herculean for RTSA, perhaps we should consider outsourcing examination for motor vehicle roadworthiness to reputable garages.