Tinted Glass, Broken Trust, and Nigeria’s Defining Test for the Rule of Law
By [Oluwatosin Emmanuel]
In every democracy, there comes a moment when institutions must choose between power and principle. For Nigeria, that moment has arrived—not with tanks on the streets or decrees from the past, but with tinted glass, a press statement, and a troubling silence where obedience to the courts should have spoken loudly.
On 15 December 2025, the Nigeria Police Force announced the resumption of enforcement of the controversial tinted glass permit policy, effective 2 January 2026. The statement, signed by the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin, landed like a thunderbolt across legal, civic, and political circles. It was not merely the policy that unsettled the nation—it was the timing, the context, and the implication that a solemn undertaking made before a Federal High Court could be casually discarded.
For a force constitutionally mandated to enforce the law, the announcement raised a profound question: what happens when the enforcers themselves appear to stand above the law?
A POLICY SHADOWED BY CONTROVERSY
The tinted glass permit policy was introduced in April 2025, requiring motorists to obtain and renew permits annually through an online portal. Almost immediately, it drew widespread condemnation. Reports of extortion, harassment, unlawful arrests, and intimidation—particularly of young Nigerians—flooded social media and civic platforms.
What was framed as a security intervention soon felt, to many citizens, like another toll gate in daily life—one more place where dignity must be negotiated at gunpoint.
The policy’s economic implications were equally alarming. At a time when Nigerians face soaring living costs and imminent tax reforms, the requirement imposed an additional financial burden, further reinforcing the perception of Nigeria as an increasingly difficult place to live, work, and do business.
THE LAWYERS ENTER THE ARENA
In September 2025, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), through its Section on Public Interest and Development Law, approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the policy.
The suit raised questions that cut to the bone of democratic governance:
Can a military-era decree from 1991 withstand modern constitutional scrutiny?
Does the Nigeria Police Force have authority to impose levies on citizens?
Why are proceeds paid into a private bank account, not the Treasury Single Account?
How can a law enforcement agency lawfully nullify existing permits and demand renewals without statutory backing?
To the NBA, the policy was not merely unlawful—it was extortion dressed in uniform.
COURTROOM ASSURANCES AND A BINDING PROMISE
As public outrage grew, a second suit in Warri produced a court order directing all parties to maintain the status quo, restraining enforcement pending judicial determination.
In response, the Inspector General of Police convened a high-level meeting involving senior police leadership, leading Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and representatives of the NBA. The outcome was clear and unequivocal: enforcement would be suspended pending court decisions.
This assurance was not confined to closed doors. On 12 December 2025, the Police’s counsel, Chief Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN, informed the Federal High Court in Abuja of the agreement. The Court accepted the undertaking and, relying on it, struck out a motion for interlocutory injunction.
In law, such an undertaking is not casual conversation—it is a pledge that binds.
A STUNNING REVERSAL
Barely one working day later, the Police reversed course.
The announcement to resume enforcement stunned legal observers and civic groups alike. To many, it appeared as a direct contradiction of a judicial undertaking and a clear case of executive overreach.
Legal precedent is unambiguous. In Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986), the Supreme Court warned that no authority, however powerful, may overreach the courts or take the law into its own hands. The rule of law, the Court held, is the bedrock of society; once fractured, disorder follows.
For a nation still battling the ghosts of military rule, the symbolism could not be more unsettling.
THE NBA DRAWS A LINE IN THE SAND
The response from the Nigerian Bar Association was swift and firm. Describing the Police action as “a grave affront to the majesty of the court,” the NBA demanded immediate withdrawal of the enforcement notice.
More significantly, the Association directed all its branches and human rights committees nationwide to intervene and provide legal representation to any Nigerian harassed, arrested, or prosecuted under the policy.
The warning was unmistakable: contempt proceedings would follow if the Police persisted. Professional sanctions would await any counsel found to have misled the court.
BEYOND TINTED WINDOWS
This controversy is no longer about glass.
It is about whether Nigeria’s democracy is governed by court orders or press releases, by constitutional restraint or administrative impulse. It is about whether public institutions recognise that power, unchecked by law, becomes a threat rather than a safeguard.
The NBA has called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to intervene—not as a political act, but as a constitutional necessity. In a democracy, silence in the face of judicial defiance is not neutrality; it is complicity.
A MOMENT THAT DEFINES A NATION
Every nation has moments that test its soul. This is one of Nigeria’s.
Will the Nigeria Police Force retrace its steps and reaffirm its allegiance to the rule of law? Or will a dangerous precedent be set—one where court assurances mean little and enforcement bows to revenue and convenience?
As the courts prepare to speak, Nigerians are watching. History, too, is watching.
Because when the guardians of the law defy the law, the glass is no longer tinted—our democracy is.
---
If you want, I can:
Craft a striking cover headline + deck
Add pull quotes and sidebars
Localise it for international readership
Reduce or expand word count to fit a specific magazine format
Just say the word.
