By Kelvin Adegbenga
Recent commentary suggesting that the Nigeria Police Force resumed enforcement of the Tinted Glass Permit because President Bola Ahmed Tinubu withdrew VIP protection is not only misleading but also distracts from the real issues at stake.
This narrative is speculative, unfounded, and fails to engage with the legal, security, and operational realities driving the policy.
First, it is important to state clearly that the enforcement of tinted glass regulations has nothing to do with the withdrawal or adjustment of VIP protection. The Nigeria Police Force operates within a framework of laws and regulations designed to safeguard lives and property.
Enforcement decisions are informed by security assessments, intelligence reports, and the prevailing crime situation, not by conjectures about welfare or perks.
Contrary to claims that police officers are being pushed into enforcement due to poor welfare, the reality today is markedly different. Police personnel are now better remunerated than in previous years, with improved salaries and enhanced allowances in place.
These reforms have significantly boosted morale and professionalism within the Force. To suggest that enforcement actions are driven by financial desperation is to ignore the ongoing welfare improvements and the institutional commitment to lawful policing.
More importantly, the enforcement of tinted glass permit regulations is firmly rooted in existing Nigerian law. The National Road Traffic Regulations, 2012, and the Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act, 2004, clearly regulate the use of tinted glass on vehicles.
These laws were enacted to address security concerns, particularly the use of heavily tinted vehicles to conceal criminal activities. The police are therefore not introducing a new policy but simply enforcing laws that have long been on the statute books.
Available statistics and security reports indicate a worrying rise in criminal activities across the country, including kidnapping, armed robbery, and other violent crimes. Criminal elements often exploit tinted vehicles to evade detection, transport weapons, and carry out operations unnoticed.
In this context, the resumption of enforcement is a proactive measure aimed at nipping these threats in the bud before they escalate further.
Rather than politicising or trivialising the issue with unfounded claims, Nigerians should view the enforcement of tinted glass regulations as part of a broader strategy to enhance public safety.
A secure society benefits everyone, motorists, pedestrians, and law enforcement officers alike.
In conclusion, the resumption of tinted glass permit enforcement is a lawful, security-driven decision grounded in existing legislation and the urgent need to address rising crime. It is not a reaction to the withdrawal of VIP protection, nor is it a reflection of poor police welfare.
The focus should remain on compliance with the law and collective responsibility in ensuring a safer Nigeria.
Kelvin Adegenga writes from Ikeja, Lagos. email: kelvinadegbenga@yahoo.com @kelvinadegbenga
