“Our Constitution forbids recklessness, not regulation. The tint permit is how law keeps freedom and safety in balance.”

A Matter of Law, Not Sentiment

Public discourse on the tint-permit policy has been charged with emotion, yet the law remains unambiguous: the policy is constitutional, necessary, and firmly within the powers of the Federal Government. It is a national policy that applies to every part of Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal made it clear in A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) that no fundamental right is absolute. Every right including privacy must yield when public safety or national security is on the line. The tint-permit regulation is built on that same idea: protecting the lives of citizens is more important than unrestricted privacy. It’s the Federal Government’s job, through law enforcement, to ensure that security doesn’t end at state borders.

The Constitutional Mandate for Security and Privacy Within Limits

Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear: “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” That means any government that ignores security fails its first duty to the people. When the Nigeria Police Force enforces the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act, 1991, it is not exceeding its powers it is fulfilling that constitutional duty. The Supreme Court, in Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party (2008) 12 WRN 65, confirmed that the police have preventive powers they don’t have to wait for a crime to happen before they act. Regulating tinted vehicles which criminals have often used for kidnapping, robbery, and gun-running is a preventive measure. It’s better to stop danger before it starts than to chase it afterward. Now, yes, Section 37 of the Constitution protects the right to privacy, but Section 45(1) also says that the law can set limits “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.” In Dr. Okonkwo v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 206, the Supreme Court said it plainly individual rights must be balanced against the welfare of society. That’s what the tint permit does. It doesn’t take away privacy; it ensures privacy isn’t used as a cover for crime.

Legality and Presumption of Regularity

It’s important to understand that the tint-permit policy isn’t a new law pulled out of nowhere. It’s built on an existing Act that has been in force since 1991, now modernized through the Police Specialized Services Automation Project (POSSAP).

Under Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, the actions of public officers are presumed regular unless a court says otherwise. The Supreme Court, in FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113, confirmed that any administrative act done under lawful authority remains valid until declared void by a competent court. So, until the courts rule otherwise, the tint-permit policy stands on firm legal ground.

Proportional and Reasonable Restrictions

Every restriction on rights must be reasonable, fair, and aimed at the public good. The Court of Appeal, in Okafor v. Lagos State Government (2016) LPELR-41066 (CA), held that the government may limit certain freedoms for safety reasons as long as such measures are not arbitrary or oppressive.

The tint permit meets that test because:

1. It has a legitimate aim — fighting crime and protecting citizens.

2. It is uniformly applied — not targeted at any group.

3. It provides exceptions — for medical, diplomatic, and professional reasons.

In Nemi v. The State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) 1, the Supreme Court warned that liberty must live side by side with law. Freedom without control leads to anarchy; freedom guided by law builds democracy. The tint permit represents that balance citizens keep their rights, but within a system that protects everyone’s safety.

Where Law Meets Common Sense

At the heart of it all, the tint-permit policy is not about control it’s about protection. The Constitution doesn’t forbid the government from making laws; it only insists that such laws be fair, just, and reasonable. Through this regulation, the Federal Government is doing what it was created to do: protect lives, prevent crime, and preserve peace. No one’s freedom is being taken away the law simply asks us to use that freedom responsibly.

A government that ignores security risks fails its people, but one that acts to prevent them fulfills its duty. The tint permit stands for order, not oppression.

Our Constitution forbids recklessness, not regulation. Real democracy isn’t chaos; it’s freedom guided by responsibility. The tint permit reminds us that liberty and safety can exist side by side and that one person’s right must never endanger another’s life. In my humble opinion, the tint permit isn’t repression it’s protection. And protection is the truest duty of the law.