When Kyukun, Inspector General of Police rolled out a new tinted‑glass permit rule, the legal community in Nigeria went into overdrive. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) filed a lawsuit on October 2, 2025, accusing the police chief of overstepping constitutional boundaries.
Background of the tinted‑glass permit policy
The directive first floated in April 2025, mandating that every motorist with tinted vehicle windows secure an annual permit through a brand‑new digital portal. Initially slated for a June 1 start, the rollout was pushed back to October 2, giving owners a few extra weeks to comply – or, as many drivers discovered, to face penalties.
According to the police, the move was meant to curb illegal tinting that hinders law‑enforcement visibility. Critics, however, argue the policy is less about safety and more about generating revenue while tightening state control over private property.
NBA’s legal move and key players
At a pre‑conference National Executive Council meeting in Enugu on August 23, 2025, the NBA resolved to challenge the measure in court. Paul Ananaba, chairman of the association’s public‑interest and development laws section, warned that the digital permit system lacked transparency and could be weaponised against ordinary citizens.
“We are looking at a policy that not only sidesteps due process but also opens the door for arbitrary enforcement,” Ananaba told reporters. “The portal’s criteria are vague, the fees are unclear, and there is no independent oversight.”
The lawsuit, filed in the Federal High Court, hinges on two main arguments: first, that the policy infringes on the right to property under Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution; second, that the implementation violates procedural fairness guaranteed by Article 36.
Police enforcement and the judge’s car incident
Enforcement kicked off on the day the policy officially took effect – October 2, 2025. The Nigeria Police Force (Nigeria Police Force) began stopping cars, checking digital permits, and, in a shocking twist, impounded the vehicle of a sitting judge who had allegedly failed to produce a valid permit.
The incident sent ripples through the legal fraternity. Many lawyers saw it as an intimidation tactic, while the police defended the action as routine. “We are applying the law uniformly,” a senior officer said, refusing to name the judge.
Following the seizure, the NBA issued an urgent appeal urging the police to halt enforcement until the constitutional issues are resolved. The association’s statement warned that continued action could erode public confidence in both the judicial and law‑enforcement institutions.
Constitutional arguments and potential impact
The crux of the case lies in whether the state can require a permit for something as ordinary as window tint. Legal scholars are divided. Professor Chinyere Okonkwo of the University of Lagos argues that “any state‑imposed restriction on private property must meet a strict test of necessity and proportionality.” Others, like former Attorney‑General Abdullahi Yusuf, contend that the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring road safety.
If the court sides with the NBA, the immediate effect would be a suspension of the permit system, likely prompting the police to revert to traditional visual inspections – a method many said was already ineffective.
Conversely, if the policy survives judicial scrutiny, motorists could face ongoing fees, a digital compliance burden, and the spectre of vehicle impoundment for non‑compliance. The business community worries about the added cost, especially for fleet operators who already navigate a maze of licences.
What comes next for the case?
The Federal High Court is expected to deliver a preliminary judgment by the end of November 2025. Both sides have appointed seasoned counsel; the NBA has enlisted former Supreme Court Justice Kayode Adeniyi, while the police are represented by the Ministry of Interior’s legal team.
In the meantime, the NBA has called for a public hearing, inviting civil‑society groups, motorist associations, and human‑rights watchdogs to weigh in. The outcome could set a precedent for how Nigeria balances regulatory ambition with constitutional safeguards.
Key facts at a glance
- Policy introduced: April 2025
- Original start date: June 1 2025 (postponed)
- Actual enforcement date: October 2 2025
- Legal challenge filed: October 2 2025 by the NBA
- Primary complainant: Paul Ananaba
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the lawsuit affect motorists seeking tinted‑glass permits?
If the court grants an injunction, enforcement will pause, meaning drivers can operate without the digital permit until a final ruling. Should the policy be upheld, motorists must register on the portal, pay the prescribed fee, and display the permit – failure to do so could result in fines or vehicle impoundment.
What constitutional rights does the NBA claim are violated?
The NBA argues the rule breaches the right to private property and the guarantee of fair procedural conduct. Specifically, it points to Chapter II’s protection against arbitrary deprivation of property and Article 36’s requirement for due process in administrative actions.
Who is Inspector General Kyukun and what role did he play in the policy?
Kyukun, appointed in January 2025, is the head of the Nigeria Police Force. He announced the tinted‑glass permit directive during a press briefing in April and oversaw its rollout through the police command structure, making him the primary architect of the enforcement plan.
What happened with the judge’s vehicle during enforcement?
On the first day of enforcement, officers stopped a high‑court judge’s car, claimed the driver lacked a valid tinted‑glass permit, and impounded the vehicle. The incident sparked outrage among lawyers, who saw it as a breach of judicial independence and an overreach of police powers.
When is the policy expected to be fully enforced, pending the court’s decision?
The policy was slated for full nationwide roll‑out on October 2 2025. If the court issues a stay order, enforcement may be suspended indefinitely. Otherwise, the police have indicated they will continue checks across all states throughout the remainder of the year.
Sihle Tana
I am a journalist with a passion for covering daily news in Africa. My work has taken me across the continent, reporting on significant events and stories that impact communities. I strive to bring insightful and comprehensive news coverage to my readers.
This tinted‑glass permit thing just adds another headache for everyday drivers.
The whole affair reeks of overreack, cloaked in the guise of public safety.
By demanding digital permits for something as mundane as window tint, the police are effectively shackling citizens with bureaucratic chains.
The lack of clear criteria and transparent oversight makes the policy a legal minefield.
Moreover, the impoundment of a judge's car on the very first day screams intimidation.
Such actions threaten the delicate balance between law enforcement and constitutional rights.
I can see why drivers are frustrated; the sudden fee and portal add stress to an already busy commute.
It also feels like the police are using safety as a pretext for revenue.
Hope the courts sort this out soon so we don’t have to juggle permits and tickets together.
Honestly, this whole permit saga sounds like a plot straight out of a dystopian novel.
The idea that a tinted window could jeopardize national security is, frankly, absurd.
Yet here we are, watching bureaucrats turn a simple aesthetic choice into a licensing nightmare.
From a procedural standpoint, the lack of an independent oversight body is a glaring omission.
In similar regulatory frameworks, an appeal mechanism mitigates arbitrary enforcement.
Without it, the system is vulnerable to misuse, which could erode public trust in law enforcement entities.
It is incumbent upon the judiciary to examine whether the statutory instrument aligns with the constitutional guarantee of due process.
Should the court find the permit requirement disproportionate, a stay order would be warranted.
Such a decision would reaffirm the principle that regulatory measures must be both necessary and narrowly tailored.
Just another admin hassle for the everyday driver.
Yo the portal is a nightmare 😅 no one likes extra steps but it’s gotta be done
The pursuit of safety should not eclipse the sanctity of personal liberty; a balance must be struck.
Wow!!! This policy is outrageous!!! It's like the government is counting every little thing!!!
Hey folks, let’s keep the discussion respectful and supportive 😊 We all want a fair solution.
When we examine the constitutional implications of the tinted‑glass permit, we must first acknowledge the fundamental right to property as enshrined in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution. The state’s assertion that visual clarity for law‑enforcement justifies an invasive digital permit raises serious questions about proportionality. Proportionality demands that any restriction on a protected right be suitable, necessary, and the least restrictive means available. Here, the suitability is arguable: while clearer windows may aid police visibility, the same objective could be achieved through less burdensome measures such as random spot checks without a blanket permit regime. Necessity is further undermined by the fact that the policy imposes a blanket fee and administrative hurdle on all motorists, regardless of any proven safety deficit. The least‑restrictive‑means test fails spectacularly when a simple visual inspection could replace a costly digital infrastructure that many citizens lack the means to access or understand. Moreover, procedural fairness, guaranteed by Article 36, appears compromised. The portal’s criteria are vague, the fee schedule is opaque, and there is no independent oversight or appeal mechanism, which collectively diminish transparency and accountability. The impoundment of a judge’s vehicle on the inaugural day of enforcement underscores the potential for arbitrary application, suggesting a chilling effect on judicial independence. Such actions further erode confidence in both the judiciary and the police, contravening the spirit of the rule of law. If the court were to rule in favor of the NBA, it would reinforce the principle that regulatory overreach cannot eclipse constitutional safeguards. Conversely, upholding the policy could set a precedent for future administrative measures that prioritize revenue generation over individual rights. The broader societal impact cannot be ignored; drivers may become wary of complying with any future regulations, fearing hidden penalties or selective enforcement. In a democratic society, the legitimacy of law‑making rests upon its alignment with constitutional guarantees and its acceptance by the populace. Therefore, this case is not merely about tinted windows but about the balance of power between the state and its citizens. The judiciary’s decision will echo beyond Lagos, influencing how Nigeria navigates the tension between modernization initiatives and fundamental freedoms. Ultimately, the outcome will signal whether the nation embraces a people‑first approach to governance or permits unchecked bureaucratic expansion. In light of these considerations, a careful, principled adjudication is essential to preserve the constitutional order and public trust.
From a policy‑analysis perspective, the cost‑benefit ratio appears skewed; the administrative overhead and compliance costs likely outweigh marginal gains in road safety.
The situation brings to the fore a classic tension between regulatory intent and constitutional reality; on one hand, the state professes a legitimate aim of enhancing road safety, yet on the other, the mechanism chosen-mandatory digital permits for something as innocuous as window tint-seems disproportionate to the problem it seeks to address. When we unpack the procedural aspects, the absence of a clear, transparent framework for fee assessment and the lack of an independent appellate avenue raise substantial due‑process concerns under Article 36. Moreover, the fact that the enforcement began with the high‑profile seizure of a sitting judge’s vehicle adds a layer of perceived intimidation that could undermine public confidence in both the judiciary and law‑enforcement agencies. In practical terms, motorists-particularly those operating fleet vehicles or informal transport services-face an added financial and bureaucratic burden that may have ripple effects on the broader economy. If the court ultimately upholds the policy, we could see a precedent set for similar regulatory overreaches in other sectors, reinforcing a trend where revenue considerations eclipse fundamental rights. Conversely, striking down the permit requirement would reaffirm the primacy of constitutional safeguards and likely prompt the police to seek more narrowly tailored, evidence‑based interventions to address any genuine safety concerns.