By TOCHUKWU JIMO OBI

The controversies surrounding the enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy are far from over. What should have been a straightforward regulatory issue has now grown into a public debate touching on the rule of law, institutional accountability, and the limits of police powers in a constitutional democracy. At the centre of this debate is the Nigeria Police Force and the Office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), whose insistence on enforcement has raised serious legal and ethical questions.

The renewed tension follows a back-and-forth exchange between the Nigeria Police and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) over a court order reportedly halting the enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy. The NBA maintains that a competent court has issued an order restraining the police from enforcing the policy pending the determination of the substantive suit. This position, coming from the umbrella body of legal practitioners, has understandably drawn public attention and concern.

The Police, however, have taken a different stance. They argue that although such an order may exist, they have not been formally served and therefore are not bound by it. On this basis, the Police insist that enforcement will commence on January 2, 2026. This position raises a troubling question: does the mere absence of service justify proceeding with an action that is already under judicial consideration?

In defending their position, the Police have repeatedly argued that criminals and terrorists use vehicles with tinted glass to perpetrate heinous crimes, including armed robbery, kidnapping, and terrorism. According to the Police, enforcing the tinted glass permit is a necessary security measure aimed at curbing criminal activities and improving public safety. On the surface, this argument appears reasonable and appeals to widespread fears about insecurity.

However, this justification becomes weak when examined against the reality of Nigeria’s security challenges. It is a well-known fact that much of the insecurity currently facing the country is driven by banditry and kidnappings. These crimes are predominantly carried out by armed groups operating on motorcycles and within forested areas, not by individuals driving tinted glass vehicles through urban roads.

Moreover, the assumption that a tinted glass permit can prevent crime is fundamentally flawed. Criminals do not typically use vehicles registered in their own names to commit crimes, nor do they rely on official permits to shield themselves from law enforcement. A permit regime may inconvenience law-abiding citizens, but it offers little deterrence to organised criminal networks operating outside the law.

The real issue, therefore, is not the effectiveness of the tinted glass permit, but the insistence of the Nigeria Police on proceeding with enforcement in the face of a pending court order. In a constitutional democracy, once a matter is before a court, all parties are expected to exercise restraint until the court has fully determined the issue. Anything short of this undermines the authority of the judiciary.

This situation inevitably raises a disturbing question: does the conduct of the Nigeria Police and the IGP suggest that they consider themselves above the law? If the Police, as the primary enforcers of law and order, appear unwilling to subject themselves to judicial processes, the implications for democratic governance and public trust are grave.

There is no convincing reason why the Police cannot allow the court process to be exhausted. Compliance with judicial orders, whether served or not, reflects respect for the rule of law and institutional maturity. Rather than intimidating the NBA and harassing road users over the tinted glass permit, the Nigeria Police should pause enforcement, obey the law, and allow the courts to have the final word. Only then can they legitimately claim to be protectors, not violators, of the law.

•Tochukwu Jimo Obi, a public affairs commentator writes from Obosi Anambra state.

Update news