The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has criticised the Nigeria Police Force over its recent statement on the Motor Vehicle Tinted Glass Permit Policy, describing it as “polished, carefully worded, and institutionally defensive,” but fundamentally troubling in its interpretation of the rule of law.
In a statement addressed to the Force Public Relations Officer, RULAAC’s Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, argued that the police position prioritises discretion over constitutional restraint, judicial prudence and public experience.
According to Nwanguma, the police argument relies on what he described as a “technically correct but substantively flawed premise” that pending litigation does not limit police powers unless a court issues a “final” or “permanent” restraining order.
“While legally convenient, this interpretation ignores a core democratic principle that state institutions should exercise restraint when the legality, scope, or modalities of enforcement are under active judicial review, particularly where enforcement has a documented history of abuse,” he said.
Nwanguma stressed that the rule of law goes beyond the absence of a final court order. “It also demands respect for judicial processes, constitutional rights, proportionality, and public interest,” he stated, warning that by insisting on resuming enforcement simply because no court has struck the policy down, the police risk reducing the rule of law to “a procedural loophole rather than a substantive safeguard.”
RULAAC also faulted the police for what it described as silence on the real issue behind public opposition to tinted glass enforcement abuse, rather than legal theory.
“The public backlash is not rooted in ignorance of the law, but in experience — arbitrary stops, extortion, profiling, intimidation, and violence at roadblocks,” the statement said.
Nwanguma noted that repeated assurances of “professionalism,” “moderation,” and “zero tolerance for extortion” lack credibility without concrete safeguards. He argued that, without clear enforcement guidelines, independent oversight, transparent permit processes and “publicly verifiable sanctions,” such assurances amount to “rhetoric, not reform.”
The organisation expressed particular concern over portions of the police statement suggesting that decisions on the timing and mode of enforcement fall entirely within police discretion, even while litigation is pending.
“In a policing environment where discretion has historically translated into abuse, insisting on broad, unchecked discretion recreates the very conditions that previously undermined public trust,” Nwanguma said, adding that democratic policing requires discretion to be “tightly regulated, not expansively defended.”
RULAAC further questioned the police justification of public safety, noting that while tinted vehicles are often linked to crimes such as kidnapping and armed robbery, no evidence was provided to show that previous enforcement reduced such crimes.
“This reinforces the perception that tinted glass enforcement functions less as a strategic security intervention and more as a low-effort, high-abuse policing activity that disproportionately targets law-abiding citizens rather than organised criminals,” the statement said.
The group also criticised the police for warning against “premature conclusions” and “undue public pressure,” describing the framing as “deeply problematic.”
“Public scrutiny, criticism, and advocacy are not pressure tactics; they are constitutional rights and democratic safeguards, especially where policing practices have caused harm in the past,” Nwanguma said.
RULAAC said the police failed to address what it described as the most critical question: why there is urgency to reassert enforcement authority while court cases are pending, public trust remains fragile, and citizens face severe economic pressure.
According to the organisation, a response consistent with the rule of law would have included suspending enforcement pending judicial determination, transparent engagement with civil society, publication of clear and binding enforcement protocols, and accountability for past abuses.
In conclusion, Nwanguma said the police statement presents legality “as a shield rather than as a responsibility.”
“In a democracy, policing is not validated solely by statutory power, but by restraint, accountability, and public trust,” he said, warning that resuming tinted glass enforcement under current conditions remains inconsistent “with the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule of law.”
