In April 2025, the Inspector-General of Police introduced a policy which mandated members of the Nigerian motoring public to apply for and obtain annual motor tinted glass permits from the Nigeria Police Force upon the payment of a prescribed fee.
This policy, as conceptualized, raises grave concerns regarding potential threats to, and violation of, citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly the right to dignity of the human person, right to privacy, right to freedom of movement and the right to own movable property guaranteed as by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended.
It also raises some constitutional issues, particularly the validity of the Motor Tinted Glass (Prohibition) Act (Decree 1991), a military-era law, and whether it meets the constitutional threshold of a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society as contemplated under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution, sufficient enough to warrant any derogation from citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of movement.
In all these issues, including the designation of a security policy as a revenue generation project and the use of consultants and private bank accounts to collect public sector revenue, the Police has not sufficiently addressed the mischief which the proposed policy was meant to address.
I understand that the policy aims to enhance security by preventing crimes like kidnapping and robbery, where in some cases, tinted vehicles aid evasion. I will therefore call on the Inspector General of Police to be more intentional with citizens engagement and work harder to get the buy in of stakeholders and citizens for such policies that are projected to derogate from constitutionally guaranteed rights and also take money from the pocket of Nigerians.
Since some of legal these issues have been submitted to court for determination, I will refrain from making detailed comments on the substance of the suit.
Having said that, I wish address the proposed payment model and why, in my view, it is not helpful in addressing our security concerns.
Firstly, is the erosion of financial transparency and accountability. Government revenues should flow into the federation account as constitutionally mandated. There is no oversight on public funds by private firms. There is risk of diversion, weakening police resources for actual security operations, etc.
Secondly, there will be heightened risks of fraud and fake permits. This is because private handling of payments and applications bypass government control, making it easier for insiders or scammers to issue counterfeit permits. Fraudulent permits could proliferate, allowing criminals to operate tinted vehicles undetected, directly countering the policy’s security intent.
Thirdly, there are issues of Data privacy and breach vulnerabilities. The application process as designed, collects sensitive data (e.g., NIN, Biometrics, Vehicle details) via a privately managed portal. A private consultant lacks the stringent cybersecurity protocols of federal agencies, increasing the chance of data leaks or hacks.
Fourthly, the perception as a “revenue racket” rather than a security measure will lead to widespread defiance, erode trust in enforcement fidelity and make it harder to regulate tinted vehicles. Ultimately, it will lead to extortion on the roads.
Finally, there will be inevitable operational inefficiencies for security enforcement. This is because with payment siloed in private accounts, there is no seamless integration with national databases for real time verification. Police at checkpoints will rely on manual QR scans hindering quick identification and therefore hampers rapid response to threats.
In conclusion, while the tinted glass permit aims to curb crime by creating a registry of tinted vehicle owners, it is my view that privatizing payments process introduces layers of risks that could compromise data integrity, enable fraud and foster corruption, ultimately weakening Nigeria’s security framework.
Chief Emeka Obegolu, SAN
October, 2025.
More News:
