Police, rule of law and tinted permit controversy

The furore over the Nigeria Police Force’s earlier enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy, despite a valid court order temporarily halting it, highlights a deeper systemic decay in Nigeria’s democratic journey. It calls into question the country’s commitment to the rule of law, a fundamental pillar of democracy, and exposes the troubling disregard for […]

The furore over the Nigeria Police Force’s earlier enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy, despite a valid court order temporarily halting it, highlights a deeper systemic decay in Nigeria’s democratic journey. It calls into question the country’s commitment to the rule of law, a fundamental pillar of democracy, and exposes the troubling disregard for judicial authority by those entrusted to uphold it.

Although the police eventually allowed common sense to prevail, the initial defiance of a subsisting court order is unacceptable and must not be repeated. The episode, however brief, portrayed the police as an institution selective in its obedience to the law.

The controversy stems from an interim injunction issued by a Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, restraining the Inspector General of Police and the Nigeria Police Force from enforcing the recently reintroduced tinted glass permit policy scheduled to take effect on October 6. The order, granted on October 3, followed a motion by legal practitioner John Aikpokpo-Martins, who argued that the policy was unlawful and unduly burdensome to citizens.

Yet, two days later, Force Public Relations Officer CSP Benjamin Hundeyin claimed the police had not been formally served, paving the way for several commands nationwide to proceed with enforcement. For instance, the Yobe State Police Command announced on October 7 that it had impounded more than 70 vehicles over tinted glass violations. Similar reports emerged from across the states and the FCT, despite the restraining order.

• Why our governors are defecting — PDP
• Wike to Obi: Celebrating birthday in IDP camps won’t make you president

Even before the injunction, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), through its Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL), had filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the policy. The apex body of Nigerian lawyers questioned the legal basis for the police action, arguing that the Motor Tinted Glass (Prohibition) Act, a 1991 military decree, fails the constitutional test of being “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”.

The NBA also raised concerns over alleged harassment and extortion by police officers at checkpoints and over reports that payments for the new permits were being routed to a private account belonging to Parkway Projects, rather than the Treasury Single Account (TSA). The group said this arrangement, combined with the annual N15, 000 fee for the permit, reinforced suspicions that the scheme was designed more for revenue generation than for security enhancement.

Questions persist about the selection process for the private vendor managing the registration portal, the transparency of its procurement, and whether public funds are being properly accounted for. These concerns have fuelled public fears that the initiative serves private interests under the guise of law enforcement.

The police, for their part, have defended the policy as a necessary security measure, arguing that criminals exploit tinted windows to conceal their identities. They have also denied any revenue motive, maintaining that all payments are remitted to the federal government’s TSA.

While the courts deliberate on the legality of the policy, this newspaper refrains from taking a position on its merits. However, the police’s initial reaction to the interim injunction was deeply troubling and did little to inspire public confidence. The Force, as the chief enforcer of law and order, must not be seen as the first to violate judicial pronouncements.

Legal experts have noted that the injunction did more than suspend enforcement; it explicitly barred the police and their agents from “harassing, stopping, arresting, detaining, or impounding vehicles” under the guise of the new regulations pending the determination of the substantive suit. The order demanded respect for the judicial process pending the case’s resolution.

That the police initially chose to question the court’s authority publicly instead of complying immediately reflects poorly on institutional discipline. Regardless of its motives, no agency is above the law. If the police disagreed with the ruling, the proper course was to seek redress in court, not to proceed with enforcement or claim ignorance of the order.

The hasty insistence on implementation despite the restraining order has only strengthened public suspicion that the policy was designed for financial gain rather than security enhancement. The police could learn from the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO), which promptly obeyed a similar court directive before pursuing legal clarification.

Public concern over the safety of personal data collected through the registration portal also deserves urgent attention. The police must demonstrate that the private firm managing the system is competent and accountable for protecting Nigerians’ information.

Ultimately, the episode should serve as a learning curve for the Nigeria Police Force. It must show Nigerians that it is a law enforcer, not a lawbreaker; and that its loyalty lies first with the Constitution and the people it is sworn to protect.