A Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, has ordered the Nigeria Police Force and the Inspector-General of Police to maintain the status quo in a case challenging the legality of the recently revived tinted glass permit enforcement.

The suit was filed by lawyer John Aikpokpo-Martins, who argues that the enforcement regime introduced by the Police is unlawful and inconsistent with the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act of 1991. The law allows permits to be granted only for specific reasons, such as medical or security needs.

The Police had reintroduced the tinted glass permit policy through its digital platform, POSSAP, citing widespread public complaints about harassment by officers and the security risks posed by vehicles with opaque windows. Full enforcement began in June 2025 after a 30-day grace period, but deadlines were later extended to August and then to October to allow motorists additional time to comply.

Officials defended the policy on security grounds, arguing that criminals frequently exploit vehicles with dark or factory-fitted tints to conceal their activities and evade detection.

Aikpokpo-Martins, however, maintains that the blanket enforcement unfairly burdens law-abiding motorists, infringes on constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of movement, and risks enabling further harassment by security agents.

His position has gained traction among civil society groups and the Nigerian Bar Association, which has filed a separate suit questioning the constitutionality of the scheme. The NBA also raised concerns about transparency in the application process, the handling of fees, and the potential for abuse by officers during enforcement.

Critics argue that while security considerations are valid, the implementation framework lacks clarity, fairness, and proper oversight. Many motorists also complain that the application process is cumbersome and prone to delays.

Despite the Police insisting that the program is both lawful and necessary for public safety, the Warri court’s ruling highlights the growing legal and public opposition.

Until the substantive issues are determined, the directive effectively suspends the scheme, placing its future in uncertainty and leaving millions of motorists unsure about compliance requirements or the legitimacy of the policy itself.