The Nigeria Police Force began the new year with a public relations climb down. The Force announced in mid December a restoration of an enforcement regime for vehicle tinted glass permits. This was set to take effect on 2 January 2026. Yet, it has been paused after a court issued an interim injunction.
The statement from the Force, issued as a New Year communique, says enforcement is suspended nationwide pending further court proceedings.
That pause follows a litigant filing an ex parte motion that produced an interim order on 17 December 2025. The suit is recorded as HOR/FHR/M/31/2025 and was given by a Delta State court.
The Force says it has entered an appearance. It has filed preliminary objections. The Force has applied for vacation of the order. The next hearing is listed for 20 January 2026.
At stake in this dispute is more than window film. The controversy has exposed a seam where security policy, revenue raising and everyday costs for motorists meet. The Police had justified the move as a security measure, pointing to a rise in vehicle enabled crimes.
Critics and rights groups claim the exercise has been used elsewhere as a revenue stream. It is enforced in ways that amount to harassment and selective extortion. That accusation has been aired loudly by the legal profession and civil liberties organisations.
Confusion over the price and payment route for the permit has inflamed the debate. Public reporting and guidance pages for applicants vary. Figures cited in different outlets range from about ₦14,000 to over ₦21,000. There are claims that payments were being channelled to non-government accounts.
Those differences matter. If a police regulatory measure requires payment, there must be transparency about the fee. It is important to know where it is lodged and how proceeds are accounted for. This transparency is essential to prevent abuse.
The legal architecture underpinning the policy is itself contested. The motor tinted glass rule traces its authority to an era of decrees and regulations. Critics argue that these rules do not meet the constitutional tests for limits on fundamental rights.
The Nigerian Bar Association and other lawyers have highlighted that the policy is a blunt instrument. It risks unlawful interference with property and privacy. It also poses a potential avenue for arbitrary stops and searches. Those professional objections helped propel the matter into court.
From an economic standpoint the imposition or reimposition of a permit fee carries real costs for households and businesses. Nigeria’s informal and small business sectors depend on cheap mobility. A recurring permit levy becomes a tax on movement and commerce.
It also creates administrative frictions for importers, logistics firms and ride hailing services that operate on tight margins. Even a modest annual charge multiplied across millions of vehicles quickly becomes significant. The risk is that the burden will fall heaviest on ordinary motorists instead of organised crime.
There is a governance problem too. Multiple credible reports allege that prior iterations of the tinted permit regime were enforced improperly. This enforcement led to payments being made to private accounts and to third party agents. Whether anecdote or practise the effect is the same.
A rule that delegates fee collection or validation to intermediaries with poor oversight invites rent seeking. It is a fraught policy choice for a security agency to be the face of a revenue stream without clear statutory mandate. This decision is risky in a fragile fiscal environment.
The police insist the policy is about safety and that any revenue questions are being handled through proper channels. The IGP’s office has framed the decision as a measured response. It aims to protect lives and property. The office has also emphasised deference to the court process.
That posture is politically prudent. But it does not resolve deeper questions. Who authorised the administrative architecture that turns a policing regulation into a recurring levy? Which public accounts will receive the funds and who audits their use? Those are not solely legal questions, they are matters of public finance and accountability. L
For ordinary motorists the immediate concern is practical. Many drivers are unclear about whether they need to apply now. They are also unsure about what documents are required. Additionally, they wonder whether existing factory fitted tints will attract scrutiny.
Conflicting reports on costs create space for agents to charge variable fees. Enforcement on the road becomes an opportunity for harassment. The likely consequence is a spike in compliance costs and an increase in petty corruption. This will happen unless the court insists on transparent arrangements. The police must also publish clear, audited procedures.
There is also a broader policy contradiction. Nigeria’s tax reform agenda gained prominence in public debate late in 2025. It aimed to simplify tax processes and reduce multiplicity of levies. The introduction of a separate annual permit fee enforced by a law enforcement agency cuts the other way.
Policymakers must reconcile security imperatives with macroeconomic goals that aim to improve the business climate. Otherwise ad hoc charges will continue to distort the cost of doing business.
What should happen next is straightforward on paper. The police and the litigant should litigate the legal questions in open court. The police should make publicly available the legal basis for fee levels and the destination accounts.
The National Assembly or relevant fiscal authorities should review the regulatory levy. They need to decide if it is permissible for the police to manage within the public finance framework.
In parallel, the judiciary must be allowed to decide if the interim order will stand. They must also be allowed to decide if it will be set aside and on what grounds.
The tinted glass row is a test case. It asks if security policy will be used to generate revenue. It also questions if institutions will enforce rules with transparency and respect for the separation of powers. For now motorists will be watching the Delta court calendar on 20 January 2026.
For the government, it would be wiser to treat this as an opportunity to reset policy. It should publish clear rules and restore public confidence. This is better than attempting to continue by administrative fiat. The cost of failing to do so will be measured not only in naira but in trust.
Additional reporting by Peter Jene, Atlantic Post Senior National Correspondent.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
