Court Bars Police from Enforcing New Tinted Permit Rule

A Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, has directed the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to maintain the status quo in the ongoing legal challenge to the tinted glass permit enforcement scheme.

The suit was filed by lawyer John Aikpokpo-Martins, who is challenging the legality of the tinted-permit enforcement regime.

Under the court’s order, the police are restrained from taking fresh steps to enforce the tinted-glass permit policy until the court gives further directions. In effect, they are to leave things as they currently are — no new arrests, no penalties, no intensification of enforcement — in relation to the tinted glass directive.

Before this court ruling, the Nigeria Police had already signaled their intention to roll out enforcement — a stance that has fueled public controversy and legal backlash.

In April 2025, the IGP approved a tinted glass permit policy requiring motorists to obtain annual permits for tinted windows, pegged at ₦14,200 per vehicle.

In August 2025, the IGP granted a 52-day extension to the enforcement deadline, pushing the start date forward.

Officials publicly declared that enforcement would commence on October 2, 2025.

Don’t miss out on any real-time information. Join our WhatsApp group to stay updated.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN

The Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin, maintained that only a court order, not mere service of lawsuit papers, could stop the enforcement. “Only an order of court can stop the enforcement of an existing law. There is no such order! Mere service of court papers is not equal to a court order,” he warned.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been vocal against the tinted permit scheme. In a public letter to the IGP, the NBA demanded immediate suspension of the enforcement, arguing that once a matter is before the courts, the parties must maintain the status quo.

The NBA threatened legal action, particularly over police statements suggesting the tinted permit enforcement would go ahead despite ongoing litigation. It warned that any enforcement in defiance of the court’s authority would constitute contempt.

Some enforcement actions have already drawn sharp criticism. For instance, police officers allegedly impounded a vehicle belonging to a judge in Delta State during tinted permit enforcement operations. The NBA described this as an affront to judicial dignity.

Public reactions have likewise ranged from anger over perceived harassment at roadblocks to concerns about delays, opacity, and extortion in the permit-application process.

With the Warri court order in place, the police, for now, are bound to pause any further enforcement of the tinted-glass permit policy, at least until the court makes a substantive determination.

The central legal questions include whether the police have statutory authority to impose annual renewals, seize vehicles, demand fees, or detain motorists under the tinted glass law. These issues are now pending before the court (including in a related suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025) filed by NBA/SPIDEL.