The furore that has trailed the purported re-introduction of Permit for the use of tinted window glass in vehicles, recently took a worrisome turn when the Police started apprehending vehicles with tinted glass, seizing those who have no Police Permit to use same. Across 22 States of Nigeria, several citizens have suffered such indignity. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) through its Section of Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) has taken legal action on behalf of affected Nigerians, to seek the intervention of the Judiciary on this vexed issue. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN; Kunle Edun, SAN and Emeka Obegolu, SAN weigh in on the propriety or otherwise of this purported policy on the use of tinted car windows, its potential to breach the constitutional rights of citizens, and the opaque privatisation of payment process involved in obtaining the Permit 

Nigeria Police and the Tinted Glass Law

Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

Introduction

The Nigeria Police Force is in the news again, for the enforcement of the ban against tinted or shaded glasses in motor cars. On April 25, 2025, the Police announced its intention to compel the procurement of a written permit, on all cars with tinted glasses. Although, no cogent reason has been proffered for the implementation of this tinted glass policy inherited as part of the military invasion of our political space, it would seem from all indications that, the goal is that of revenue generation. The challenge with this is that Nigerians have been taxed and overtaxed, and if the rationale behind the current tax reform laws is to harmonise all taxes, then there has to be a rethink of this policy by the Police.

The Law Against Tinted or Shaded Motor Glasses

On 8th February, 1991, the Military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida (Rtd) enacted the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree 1991, in the following terms:

 “The Federal Military Government hereby decrees as follows:

1. (1) Except with the permission of the appropriate authority designated for the purposes of this Decree and for such good cause as may be determined from time to time by the appropriate authority, no person shall cause any glass fitted on a motor vehicle to be-

(a) tinted; or (b) shaded; or (c) coloured lightly or thickly (d) darkened; or (e) treated in any other way, so that the persons or objects in the motor vehicle are rendered obscure or invisible.

 (2) In this section, “good cause” means health or security reasons.

2. (l) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, rule of law, enactment or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, as amended, any person who without the permission of the appropriate authority-

(a) causes any glass fitted on a motor vehicle to be treated in any manner specified in Section 1(1) of this Decree

(b) does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to tint, shade, colour, darken, or treat in any other way any glass fitted on a motor vehicle in any manner specified in Section 1(1) of this Decree

(c) aids another person in tinting, shading, colouring, darkening or treating in any other way any glass fitted on a motor vehicle in any manner specified in Section 1(1) of this Decree ; or

(d) counsels or procures any other person to tint, shade, colour, darken or treat in any other way, any glass fitted on a motor vehicle, commits an offence under this Decree and shall be punished in the manner set out in this Decree.

(2) Any person who commits an offence under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section may himself be charged with tinting, shading, colouring, darkening or treating in any other way the glass fitted on the motor vehicle or with counselling or procuring the tinting, shading, colouring, darkening or treating in any other way the glass fitted on the motor vehicle.

(3) In this Decree –

 (a) reference to the “appropriate authority” means reference to the Inspector-General of Police or any person or authority authorised by him to give such permission as is contemplated in subsection (1) of Section 1 of this Decree

(b) reference to “permission” includes registration.

3. It shall be the duty of the buyer, donee or importer of a motor vehicle with tinted, shaded, coloured, darkened or treated glass to change all the glass within a period of 14 days from the date of arrival in Nigeria or date of purchase (whichever is applicable in each circumstance).

4. (1) Any person who commits an offence under this Decree shall on conviction be liable to a fine of N2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both such fine and imprisonment.

(2) Where an offence under this Decree has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a proprietor, director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer servant or agent of the body corporate (or a person purporting to act in any such capacity) as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and may be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

5. The Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to try offenders under this Decree.”

Why the Policy is  Wrong

Understandably so, Nigerians have kicked against the enforcement of this law on so many grounds. Firstly, it is not reasonably justifiable. The cars in issue were not manufactured in Nigeria, and the owners have no control over the specification or mode of the car. To enforce such a blanket ban, the Government must have a ready alternative which it can offer to its citizens. Secondly, these cars are driven freely in other parts of the world, without the need for a permit. Thirdly, if the ban on tinted or shaded motor glasses is that of security, all that the Police need to do is to ask the motorist to wind down his glasses for random security check.

The Court Cases

The Nigerian Bar Association has challenged the enforcement of this policy in court in Abuja and the Police was duly served with the originating processes in the suit, but it claimed that since there is no positive order from the court, the enforcement will proceed, notwithstanding the court case. Subsequently, on October 2, 2025, the Federal High Court in Warri issued an order, directing the Police to show cause why an order of injunction should not be made to stop the enforcement of the policy. There has been some controversy, on the purport and effect of the order of court for the Police to show cause. Let me dwell on this, a little more.

 Under and by virtue of Order 26 Rule 8 of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019:

“2. Where a motion is made ex-parte, the Court may make or refuse to make the order sought, or may direct the motion to be made on notice to the parties to be affected thereby, or may grant an order to show cause why the order sought should not be made.

C— Order To Show Cause

13. An order to show cause shall specify a day when cause is to be shown, be called the return day to the order, which shall ordinarily be not less than three days after service.

14. A person served with an order to show cause may, before the return day, produce evidence to contradict the evidence used in obtaining the order, or setting forth other facts on which he relies to satisfy the Court to discharge or vary such order.

15. On the return day, if the person served does not appear and it appears to the Court that the service on all proper parties has not been duly effected, the Court may enlarge the time and direct further service or make such further order as seems just.

(b) if any other relief is sought, the Judge may at any time grant in the proceedings such interim relief as could be granted in an action begun by writ;

(c) the Judge may impose such terms as to costs and as to giving security as he deems fit.”

Why the Policy Must be Halted Forthwith

In law, an order for a party to show cause why an injunction should not be made, is a preliminary court order that puts the Respondent on notice to demonstrate why they should not be restrained by an injunction. The effect is that it requires the Respondent to argue against the grant of the injunction, and if they fail, the court may issue the injunction based on the Applicant’s argument. The party to whom the order is directed has the duty to show cause, or present reasons why the injunction should not be granted, and this may involve demonstrating that they have a sufficient legal remedy or that the balance of convenience does not favour the Applicant. The legal effect of the order is that, the Respondent is obligated to appear before the court and argue their case against the injunction being granted. The burden of proof rests heavily on the Applicant for the injunction to show that a serious issue to be tried exists, and that damages will be inadequate compensation. However, if the Respondent fails to show cause, this failure will strengthen the Applicant’s case for the injunction. The court’s order serves as a formal notice to the Respondent about the potential injunction, and allows them to be heard on the matter. The order aims to maintain the current state of affairs (status quo), while the court considers the application for injunction. If the Respondent fails to show cause or provides insufficient reasons against the injunction, the court can proceed to grant the injunction. And, even when no positive order of injunction has been made, the Respondent is required to keep matters in status quo, because the court will not aid a party who is guilty of taking steps to jeopardise the subject-matter of the application for injunction. 

In the case of John Aikpkokpo-Martins however, the court specifically directed the Police to maintain the status quo, effectively halting the implementation or further implementation of the policy, pending the hearing and determination of the application for injunction. As the Police are established to maintain law and order and to enforce decisions of the court, the policy on tinted motor glass permits should be suspended for now.

Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, Human Rights Advocate, Lagos

Illegality of Motor Vehicle Tinted Glass Permit Policy 

Kunle Edun, SAN

According to Section 4 of the Police Act,2020, the Nigeria Police Force has several key functions which include: crime prevention and detection, protection of lives and property, maintenance of law and order, community policing, crises response and management, arrest and detention, search and seizure. The Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act, 1991 is the law that the Nigeria Police seems to rely on to purport to forbid the use of tinted glass by motorists on our roads, and setting modalities for the issuance of the permit. 

Analysis of the Law

A proper analysis of the Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act (which was initially a Decree passed by a military government), would reveal that it should not be an existing law in a democratic setting.

Section 1 (1) of the Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act, 1991(The Act)  provides that “except with permission of the appropriate authority designated for the purpose of this Decree and for such good cause as may be determined from time to time by the appropriate authority , no person shall cause any glass fitted on a motor vehicle to be- a) tinted, or shaded or, coloured or treated in any way so that the person or object in the motor vehicle are rendered obscure or invisible.” 

The Police seems to derive its power under Section 3 (a) of the Act which provides that- “Reference to the “appropriate authority” means reference to the Inspector General of Police or any person or authority authorised by him to give such permission as is contemplated in subsection (1) of 1 of this Decree.”

There is nowhere in the Act where the Police was authorised to impose any charge, levy or fee for the issuance of the Permit. It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be taxation without law. This position has been judicially determined by the Courts in the case of S.A. Authority v Regional Tax Board (1970) LPELR-2967 (SC) and AG Ogun State v Aberuagba (1985) 1 NWLR (PT3) 395, where the courts decided that there cannot be taxation without an enabling law. Therefore, imposing a fee for the performance of a purely function is illegal and morally-reprehensible. Concerns have also been raised on the constitutionality of the purported Act, and that the National Assembly did not exceed its legislative powers in enacting the Act. The Federal legislature can only enact laws, on subjects within the Exclusive and Concurrent List. Matters relating to Motor Vehicles and usage, are now within the legislative competence of the National Assembly of Nigeria. 

The argument of the Nigeria Police Section 26 (e) and (f) of the Police Establishment Act 2025, enables it to render specialised services for a fee, and therefore, justifies the payment of levy or tax for motor vehicle tinted permit. This, in my view, is a very wrong premise and a gross mis-application of settled principles of law regarding taxation (which this fee is actually) and the provisions of the Interpretation Act on statutory pre-conditions, that must be satisfied before fees or levies can be charged when the law is silent on it. The Police Act spells out certain specialised services it can perform for fees, which includes issuing Police extract and SPY Police. As a matter of fact, there are transparency issues, regarding the receipts and utilisation of the funds accruing from these specialised services. But, this will be a discussion for another day.  

More so, the Act does not provide anywhere in the law, that the permit must be issued annually. The Police decided to import into the law, what it never intended. Before now, permits were issued, but never renewable every year, and no official fee charged. It makes no sense to renew a tinted glass permit every year because it is attached to the vehicle, and the ownership of the vehicle does not change every year and the tint is not replaced. Moreover, payment for tinted glass amounts to creating another layer of registration/taxation, whereas, there can be a one bust-stop for all registrations relating to vehicles; the best time and place being at the time of purchase and the port of arrival. 

It is also concerning that the advertised account into which the payment of N14,000 (some alleged that they paid more than N50, 000) is to be made is Parkway Project, apparently a ‘private account’, and this is contrary to the Treasury Single Account Policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria, for a policy of this nature that has the prospect of generating at least N3 billion in a month, considering the number of vehicles in Nigeria. Most of the vehicles imported into Nigeria have tinted glasses, and were all cleared at the Ports by the Government. 

Concerns

Concerns have been raised also, about a possible abuse of the registration process. All owners of tinted vehicles, will go to the Police State Command headquarters for capturing and uploading. Imagine thousands of Nigerians trooping to the State Commands’ offices everyday, just to capture their details. What happened to the word ‘decentralisation for efficiency’? 

More worrisome is the fact that even if all tinted vehicles have permits, it would not reduce crime rate, as othere is no verifiable statistics provided by the Police, to know the percentage of tinted vehicles that were used in committing crimes. It is an open secret that the manner in which the online platform for tinted permit registration was configured any criminal can apply for it, as the Police have no crime data. So, procuring the tinted permit does not in any way reduce the crime rate, or aid in the detection and prevention of crimes. Government officials are most guilty of heavily tinting their motor glasses, and it is the same armed Policemen that move with them. They are unstoppable on the road because they are above the law, apparently.

In civilised climes, policing functions have gone digital. Nigeria Police should stop paper policing. As at today, there is no functional crime data in Nigeria, not even in any State or Area Command in Nigeria. Therefore, all criminals would easily apply for the tint and pay for it, and still go on with their criminal business. Is the Police now saying that every vehicle that has a tinted glass permit, will no longer be subjected to stop and search again? If they would be stopped, why apply for permit? Most of the vehicles that have tinted glasses are factory-fitted and there are good reasons for the tint, which includes health and privacy concerns. Therefore, the provisions of the Act violate the provisions of Section 34, 37 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, relating to citizens’ right to dignity of human person, privacy and movement, which are inalienable rights enforceable in a democratic setting. More so, there are different levels of internationally-permissible tint, requiring no form of official approval. Sadly, the Act did not make any provision for standardisation, and the Police actually has no measurable standards for layers of tint to determine if the inside of a tinted vehicle can been seen from outside, thus, subjecting the enforcement to subjective application by any Police officer.  

The Nigeria Police Force announcing that it will embark on the enforcement of the policy and impound vehicles that do not have the permit, amounts to usurpation of powers of the Judiciary; because the Police will then be the complainant, arrester, prosecutor and enforcer of the judgement which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act 1991, did not give the Police any power to arrest any person or impound any vehicle. The judicial powers rest with the Courts in Nigeria and in this case, the Federal High Court of Nigeria is the only Court that has jurisdiction to try any offender under the Act. See PDP v LAWAL (2023) 12 NWLR (PT 1898) 205. The Court of Appeal admonished Government agencies in NWAEKPE v FRSC (2022) LPELR -56959 (CA): “As to whether Section 10 (4) and 28(2) of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment) Act, (2007) confers judicial powers on Federal Road Safety Commission or its officers contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, this Court had in the case of FRSC v ALABI & ORS (2020) LPELR – 51060 held per  Ebiowei Tobi  JCA ( delivering the lead judgement) thus: “To this end, I seem to agree with the Appellant’s submission that the said Section 10(4) of the FRSC Act does not confer judicial powers on the Appellant. In fact, I make bold to say that whichever rule of interpretation is used to interpret the above Section of the Act, there is no way Section 10(4) and 28(2) and indeed any provision of the Act confer judicial powers on the Appellant. The Act recognises the power of court to try and convict a traffic offender” – per Senchi, JCA.

The Act provides that punishment for any offence committed under the Act attracts a fine of N2000 only or six months imprisonment; there is no reasonable court that will sentence any offender for refusing to procure a permit for his tinted vehicle. So, for a fine of N2000, the Nigeria Police will want all its men to be on the roads to apprehend owners of vehicles with tinted glasses and thereby, leave other more serious issues of security that daily confront Nigerians. Kidnappers hardly use tinted vehicles. Armed robbers also. Bandits do not. If this is what it is all about, then Nigerians are right to say that the whole essence of the sudden enforcement of a 1991 law is simply for revenue generation. The fact that the permit is renewable with the payment of annual fee, further strengthens this apprehension.  

Security is not only the business of the Police, but that of everybody. However, in the enforcement of measures to protect lives and property of the citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Nigeria Police, being a law-enforcing institution, cannot be above the law; it must be subject to and obey the same laws of the land, in a manner that will take cognisance of the fundamental rights of the people of Nigeria to be treated with respect and dignity.

​