• Court didn’t bar enforcement, police argue 
• Order controversial, lawyer laments

Nigerian motorists are now more confused about whether to obey the police and pay for the Tinted Glass Permit (TGP) or ignore it as being pushed by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
 
This followed the ambiguous ex parte order issued by a Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, ordering that the status quo should be maintained, while refusing three essential prayers to restrain the police from enforcing the policy.  
 
While the NBA urged the police to desist from enforcing the policy, considering that the matter is already before the court, the police stated that the latest order didn’t restrain them from carrying out enforcement.
 
Despite assurances by the NBA to defend those harassed by the police on account of non-compliance, Nigerians are apprehensive because of prior experiences with police harassment and corruption, and the NBA’s slow response to rights violation challenges.
 
Many do not trust that this policy will genuinely reduce those problems that police claim it will. Instead, they see the risk of increased exploitation and extortion.  
 
Concerns that the policy could be used more as a revenue vehicle rather than a security measure are mounting. Former chairman of the NBA Section on Public Interest Law and Development (NBA-SPIDEL), John Aikpokpo-Martins, had filed the ex parte action marked FHC/WR/CS/103/2025 against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) as the first defendant, the police (2nd defendant) and others at the Federal High Court, Warri.
 
He prayed for three principal reliefs, among others, on behalf of himself and tinted glass vehicle users in Nigeria. The three prayers are for: “An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, men, agents, privies and/or from contractors implementing/enforcing and/or further implementing/enforcing the TGP policy set to commence on October 6, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed along with this application.
 
“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, men, agents, privies and/or contractors stopping, harassing, arresting, detaining, impounding the plaintiffs’ cars or extorting and/or otherwise interfering with the constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, freedom of movement and ownership of property of citizens/motorists in purported enforcement of the TGP policy pending hearing and determination of the motion on notice already filed.”
 
He also sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to use the Parkway Projects A/C No. 4001017918 to collect fees for the renewal of TGP or conduct any government business pending the determination of the matter.
 
After hearing the chairman of the NBA-SPIDEL Public Interest Litigation Committee, Kunle Edu (SAN), leading other lawyers on behalf of the applicant, on Friday, Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa made: “An order granting leave to the plaintiff/applicant to serve the originating summons and all other processes of the court on the 1st and 2nd defendants by substituted means to with; service of same by Fedex Courier service.
 
“That the 2nd defendant be served through the office of the 1st defendant. That whosoever signs for and on behalf of the 1st defendant, it shall be deemed proper service on both the 1st and 2nd defendants in the circumstances; that the defendants be served with the originating summons, the motion on notice and the order of court.
 
“The plaintiff/applicant is to put the defendants/respondents on notice, and they should come and show cause why the orders sought should not be granted.
 
“Meanwhile, an order is made for parties to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice; an order of accelerated hearing is ordered to determine this suit timeously. Meanwhile, reliefs 1, 2 and 3 are hereby refused.”
 
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter till October 16, 2025, for the hearing of the motion on notice.  Curiously, the three principal reliefs refused are the restraining prayers.
 
Capitalising on the order, police spokesman CSP Benjamin Hundeyin declared that the court didn’t bar the police from enforcing the policy. Since the police began enforcement on October 2, the interpretation of the status quo in an order delivered on October 3 has become a judicial knot for both parties to untie.
 
“While we have not officially served the court order you’re making reference to, let me, in the meantime, show Point No. 8 (of the same order) since you left that part out and focused only on Point No. 6. Nigerians deserve a complete picture, not a skewed one,” Hundeyin argued against the tweet of a human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, who hailed the status quo order on X.
  
Indeed, the court order has left many Nigerians disappointed and confused about whether to challenge the police or comply with their demands. Lamenting the situation, Stephen Azubuike, a lawyer, stated that the order is shrouded in apparent controversy.  
 
“On the one hand, it was clear the Federal High Court was not disposed to making any ex parte order restraining the police from proceeding with the implementation of the tinted glass policy. The court wishes to give the police an opportunity to be heard before making a definitive decision on the application. On the other hand, the court issues an order to maintain the status quo pending the hearing of the application.
  
“The practical implication of this is that the court seems to be ordering the police not to proceed with the TGP policy until the application against its implementation is determined. Thus, the court appears to grant an interim order which it had expressly refused. The natural consequence of this is judicially-enabled chaos. One admirable characteristic of courts is their firmness. Our courts must be bold enough to ensure positive clarity in directing the affairs of the people through their pronouncements,” he said.
  
Azubuike advised the police to allow the court to conclusively decide the case before proceeding with any further implementation agenda to avoid making a mockery of the judiciary.
  
Following this controversy, the NBA has volunteered to offer pro bono services to all Nigerians who are harassed by the police over TGP compliance through their various state branches.
 
Edu stated: “We shall invoke the powers of the court to ensure that the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) does not trample on the rights of Nigerians. Any citizen who is harassed by the police in the purported enforcement of the illegal tinted glass permit should feel free to contact any of the NBA branches.
  
Edu stressed that the matter was already in court and accused the police of being “lawless” by commencing enforcement. In a letter to the IGP dated October 2, 2025, the NBA reminded the force of the pending suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025, before the Federal High Court, Abuja, which challenges the legality and constitutionality of the policy.  
 
According to the association, the police have a duty to maintain the status quo ante bellum until the court rules. It has been estimated that the police may generate over N3 billion within a month from enforcement, thus turning the police into a revenue-generating agency of the Federal Government, rather than focusing on the more serious issue of crime fighting.
 
The police, relying on the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act/Decree (old military-era laws), which gives the IGP (or delegated officers) power to issue permits under certain conditions (e.g. health, security) for tinted glasses, as well as the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, which allows certain specialised services (including the permit) to be provided for a fee, are insisting that motorists must obtain a tinted glass permit to legally drive vehicles with tinted windows starting from October 2, 2025.
 
According to the police, the permit must be applied for via a digital portal (POSSAP), with biometric verification at the rate of N14,200. A virtual inspection of the vehicle attracts a processing fee of N2,850, making the total N17,050 per applicant, which is renewed yearly.
 
Before the ex parte application, the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA had sought a declaration that the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree 1991 is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, and that motorists cannot be compelled to pay fees or renew permits. It also sought an injunction restraining the police from further arrests, harassment or extortion under the policy.
  
The NBA argued that police officers may use the policy as justification to arbitrarily stop motorists, demand bribes, or harass drivers at checkpoints.
 
Some motorists fear the policy gives too much discretionary power to enforcement officers and adds more cost and economic burden on citizens. NBA through Prof Paul Ananaba (SAN), the chairman of the NBA-SPIDEL expressed concerns that proceeds from permits are being routed to the accounts of a private vendor (Parkway Projects) rather than to the Federation Account or Treasury Single Account (TSA) as is standard for government revenue.
  
It expressed doubt about transparency in handling the funds and the issue of proper accountability by the police authority and its third-party agent.