.jpg)
Story by Iyiola Ayomide
The Nigeria Police Force’s renewed plan to resume enforcement of tinted glass regulations, even as court cases challenging the policy remain pending, has once again ignited public anxiety. For many Nigerians, this is not merely a regulatory issue; it is a painful reminder of a policing practice that, in the past, became synonymous with harassment, extortion, and abuse rather than public safety.
Background: a history Nigerians cannot forget
Tinted glass enforcement has long been one of the most controversial aspects of traffic policing in Nigeria. Although the law provides for permits under certain conditions, enforcement over the years has been chaotic, opaque, and largely discretionary. Roadblocks became sites of intimidation, where motorists – often regardless of compliance – were compelled to part with money to avoid arrest, vehicle impoundment, or prolonged harassment. Young people, activists, and those driving newer vehicles were routinely profiled.
This pattern of abuse was one of the grievances that fuelled public anger against the police, culminating in nationwide protests against police brutality. The suspension of tinted glass enforcement was therefore widely welcomed as a necessary step to de-escalate tension and rebuild trust. Against this backdrop, the decision to resume enforcement while legal challenges are unresolved raises serious questions about institutional learning and respect for the rule of law.
Why the current move is deeply troubling
Resuming enforcement now carries multiple risks. First, it undermines the authority of the courts. When a law enforcement agency proceeds with enforcement while the legality or modalities of that enforcement are still being tested in court, it sends a dangerous signal that judicial processes can be ignored when inconvenient.
Second, it predictably exposes citizens to renewed abuse. Without clear, publicly accessible guidelines, effective oversight, and credible sanctions against extortion, tinted glass enforcement is likely to return to what it once was: a cashpoint at roadblocks rather than a legitimate security measure. At a time of severe economic hardship, this is an added and unnecessary burden on ordinary Nigerians.
Third, the policy risks worsening police – public relations. Trust in the police remains fragile. Any enforcement initiative that appears insensitive to past abuses or dismissive of public concerns threatens to deepen alienation and erode cooperation, which is essential for effective policing.
What should be done: policy recommendations
If the Nigeria Police Force is genuinely interested in public safety and lawful enforcement, several steps are unavoidable.
First, enforcement should be suspended until all pending court cases are conclusively determined. Respect for judicial authority is a cornerstone of democratic policing and must be demonstrated, not merely proclaimed.
Second, there must be clear legal and operational clarity. The law on tinted glass, the categories of exemptions, the permit process, and the rights of motorists must be publicly explained in plain language. Discretion must be minimised, as it is the oxygen of abuse.
Third, any future enforcement must be accompanied by strict accountability mechanisms. Officers found extorting, harassing, or abusing motorists should face swift disciplinary and criminal consequences. Without visible sanctions, promises of reform will ring hollow.
Fourth, enforcement priorities must reflect Nigeria’s security realities. At a time when violent crime, terrorism, and banditry remain major threats, deploying police resources to controversial, low-impact enforcement that primarily inconveniences law-abiding citizens is difficult to justify.
Finally, civil society and the public must remain vigilant. Peaceful advocacy, strategic litigation, and documentation of abuses are legitimate and necessary tools for insisting that policing serves the people, not preys on them.
Conclusion
Policing in a democracy is not about how much force the state can exert, but how well it can protect rights while ensuring safety. Restarting tinted glass enforcement in the face of unresolved legal challenges and a well-documented history of abuse is a step in the wrong direction. Until the courts have spoken and credible safeguards against extortion and harassment are firmly in place, the enforcement of tinted glass regulations should remain suspended – for the sake of the rule of law, public trust, and social peace