Court Halts Tinted Glass Permit Drive; Force Says No Order Served

When Federal High Court convened in Warri, John Aikpokpo‑Martins walked in with a legal brief that would put the spotlight on the tinted glass permit controversy gripping the nation. The judge’s ruling on October 3, 2025, told the Nigeria Police Force and its head, Inspector‑General Kayode Egbetokun, to freeze all enforcement activity until the case is fully resolved. The order, filed under case No. FHC/WR/CS/103/2025, aims to preserve the status quo while the courts weigh the policy’s legality.

Background of the Tinted Glass Permit Policy

Back in April 2025, the Inspector‑General announced a new requirement: every vehicle owner must secure an annual permit to use tinted windows. Applicants were instructed to use the digital portal possap.gov.ng, pay a fee, and display the permit in their cars. The motive, according to the police, was to curb criminals who hide behind dark glass during robberies, kidnappings, and other violent acts. The deadline was pushed twice—from an original August cut‑off to October 2, 2025—citing the 1991 Motor Vehicles Act as the legal backbone.

Supporters argue that the measure could help law‑enforcement identify suspects more quickly, especially in regions plagued by kidnapping gangs. Critics, however, see it as a revenue‑generating scheme that targets ordinary motorists, many of whom struggle with the online application’s glitches and the extra cost.

Court Ruling and Immediate Reactions

Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kunle Edun, who led the legal team for Aikpokpo‑Martins, called the judgment “a vital reinforcement of the rule of law.” He warned that any police action contrary to the order would be contempt of court. Yet the next day, Force Public Relations Officer CSP Benjamin Hundan told reporters the police had not yet been served with the injunction, insisting that operations would continue until formal service was confirmed.

The discrepancy sparked a flurry of social‑media posts, with many motorists posting videos of checkpoints still stopping cars for permits. Legal analysts note that the failure to serve the order, if true, could give the police a procedural shield, at least temporarily.

Police Enforcement Across States

Despite the court’s directive, enforcement rolled out in several states. In Niger State, Commissioner of Police Adamu Elleman personally oversaw a sweep in Minna on Thursday, directing officers to check tinted windows and request permits. Elleman emphasized that “the drive is about security, not punishment,” and warned that ignorance would not excuse non‑compliance.

Meanwhile, Lagos State Police Command launched its own series of checkpoints, pulling over dozens of vehicles in bustling districts like Victoria Island and Ikoyi. In Delta and Jigawa states, police seized 45 vehicles, including the car of a judicial officer, raising eyebrows about the impartiality of enforcement when the case is still pending.

Human‑rights observers reported that some motorists were asked to pay additional “processing fees” at the checkpoint, which they claim amounts to extortion. Others said they were threatened with arrest for driving without the permit, even though the court had ordered a freeze.

Legal Challenges and Civil Society Response

The Nigerian Bar Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA‑SPIDEL) filed a separate suit—FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025—against the Inspector‑General, arguing that the policy breaches constitutional rights to freedom of movement and equal protection. The bar’s head, Justice Kemi Adebayo, accused the police of “reckless disregard for the judiciary” and urged the court to declare the permit requirement void.

Rights groups such as the Civil Liberties Centre (CLC) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) have released statements calling the policy “unconstitutional and discriminatory.” They point to the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees that any restriction on personal liberty must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate—criteria they argue the tinted‑glass rule fails to meet.

On the other side, a coalition of victims of recent kidnappings—led by community leader Chidi Okeke in Anambra—publicly supported the police, saying that the permits could deter criminals who rely on anonymity.

Implications for Security and Civil Liberties

If the courts ultimately uphold the permit scheme, Nigeria could be setting a precedent for technology‑driven surveillance measures that blend security with revenue collection. Critics warn that such tools could be expanded to other vehicle modifications, perhaps even to tracking GPS data for commercial trucks.

Conversely, striking down the policy would reinforce judicial oversight over executive actions—a win for civil‑society activism and an affirmation that the rule of law can curb overreach, even in the face of rising insecurity.

Economically, the permit fees—estimated at ₦12,000 per year—could amount to over ₦1.2 billion in annual revenue if fully complied with, according to a market analyst at PWC Nigeria. That figure, however, is dwarfed by the cost of insecurity, which the World Bank estimates at roughly ₦5 billion annually in lost productivity.

Looking Ahead: Possible Outcomes

The next hearing is slated for November 15, 2025, where both sides will present detailed arguments on constitutionality, procedural fairness, and public safety. If the judge lifts the injunction, enforcement could resume with a clearer legal footing, possibly accompanied by revised guidelines to address the complaints raised by motorists.

Should the court dismiss the permit altogether, the police will need to devise alternative strategies—perhaps focusing more on intelligence‑led operations rather than blanket vehicle checks. Either scenario will shape the broader debate on how Nigeria balances security imperatives with individual rights in a digital age.