By Adewale Adeleke
In 1991, Nigeria’s military dictatorship introduced the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree No 6, which restricts the use of tinted glass in vehicles unless granted special permission for health or security reasons, as determined by the Inspector-General of Police or their designee.
Section 1 of the Decree stipulates that, except with the permission of the appropriate authority designated for the purposes of this Decree and for good cause, no person shall cause any glass fitted on a motor vehicle to be:
(a) tinted;
(b) shaded;
(c) lightly or thickly colored;
(d) darkened; or
(e) treated in any other way so that persons or objects inside the vehicle are rendered obscure or invisible.
Section 2 defines “good cause” as health or security reasons and designates the “appropriate authority” as the Inspector-General of Police or any person or authority authorized by them to grant such permission as outlined in Section 1(1).
Section 2 further criminalizes the following actions:
[a]Treating any glass fitted on a motor vehicle as specified in Section 1(1)
[b] Enabling, aiding, or assisting another person in treating vehicle glass as per Section 1(1)
[c] Aiding in tinting, shading, coloring, darkening, or treating any glass fitted on a motor vehicle as outlined in Section 1(1)
[d] Counseling or procuring any other person to treat any glass fitted on a motor vehicle as specified in Section 1(1)
Section 3 mandates that the buyer, recipient, or importer of a vehicle with altered glass must replace it within 14 days of the vehicle’s arrival in Nigeria or purchase date, whichever is applicable.
Section 4(1) declares that individuals found guilty of violating the Decree may face a fine of N2,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Section 4(2) extends liability to corporate entities and their representatives in cases where the offense is committed by a corporate entity.
I. Unconstitutional Delegation of Legislative Powers in the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree No. 6 of 1991
Section 1(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree No. 6 of 1991 grants the appropriate authority, specifically the Inspector General [IG] of Police, the power to determine “good cause” for tinting vehicle glass. This discretionary authority includes defining the limits of permissible tinting, which is a crucial element of the offense.
This raises a straightforward issue: Does conferring discretionary authority upon the IG of Police, an executive branch member, to determine a crucial element of the offense—what constitutes an impermissible degree of tinting applied to vehicle glass—violate the separation of powers doctrine and, thus, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers?
The doctrine of separation of powers distributes governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each with unique roles and responsibilities to maintain checks and balance. The legislature is primarily responsible for creating laws, while the executive branch implements them.
However, by delegating the task of defining “good cause” and setting permissible tinting limits to the IG of Police, the decree assigns the executive branch the power to define an element of the offense, a function reserved exclusively to the legislative branch.
This encroachment into the legislature’s role raises constitutional concerns regarding the separation of powers, which can only be remedied by amending the decree to incorporate objective Visible Light Transmission [VLT] standards. A similar statute is the DUI law, which establishes an objective standard—blood alcohol level obtained through a breathalyzer test—to determine what constitutes a DUI offense rather than delegate to the police the powers to determine the elements of what constitutes violation of the DUI statute, the blood alcohol level.
II. The Section 1(e) “Rendered Obscure or Invisible” Clause: Ambiguity, Arbitrary Application, and Questionable Constitutionality
Given the rising incidents of kidnappings, abductions, and other acts of terrorism that could be facilitated by heavily tinted vehicles, the Decree’s objective—ensuring the visibility of passengers and vehicle contents for public security—is commendable. However, it is equally important in a democracy to balance security concerns with fair and enforceable regulations.
In this instance, the use of subjective terms like “obscure” and “invisible” creates confusion, inconsistent enforcement, and opportunities for extortion by police officers. The subjective nature of these terms renders the regulations vague and open to interpretation, causing difficulties for vehicle owners and law enforcement alike.
The current regulations’ reliance on individual police officers’ discretion [the eye of the beholder model] will inevitably subject citizens to potential arbitrary treatment, undue harassment, and invariably, demand for bribe on the highways under the pretext of enforcement.
III. On Section 3: The Need for a Predefined VLT Standard: Streamlining Compliance for Vehicle Importers and Purchasers while Mitigating the Unintended Consequences of Insecurity.
Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles [Prohibition of Tinted Glass] Decree 1991 requires that the buyer, recipient, or importer of a vehicle with altered glass must replace it within 14 days of the vehicle’s arrival in Nigeria or purchase date, whichever is applicable. Enforcing this section will impose an unnecessary additional financial burden on all importers and purchasers of vehicles, whether they have factory-installed light tinting or those who opted for heavy, dark tinting installed by roadside vendors after purchase.
The regulation ought to distinguish between these two scenarios. In addition to incurring unnecessary costs, owners of vehicles with factory-installed light tinting will be compelled to alter the original manufacturer’s design and quality control standards.
Establishing an objective Visible Light Transmission [VLT] standard prior to vehicle importation would enable better compliance. Without such a standard, determining the permissible level of tinting, even for those granted exemptions, becomes challenging, potentially leading to unregulated heavily-tinted vehicles with no health or security justification—an additional risk to public security.
The unintended but foreseeable consequence of enforcing the law, as currently written, is that it would add yet another layer of security risk due to the use of vehicles in facilitating kidnapping and other acts of terrorism, including the interstate transportation of guns and explosives by bestowing legal protections to poorly regulated heavily-tinted vehicles without a legitimate health or security justification on the highways.
In practical terms, when the Inspector General [IG] or its designee grants a vehicle tinting permit, it is unclear what specific level of tinting would be prescribed. For those granted a permit on health grounds, the question arises whether the degree of tinting would be uniform for all recipients or vary based on specific health conditions. If it varies, how could compliance or non-compliance with the IG’s tinted glass permit be determined or enforced? Would it be based on an objective or a subjective standard?
To ensure fairness and avoid burdening law-abiding importers and purchasers, the law should mandate the replacement of tinted glass only when it fails to meet a predefined VLT standard. In a democracy, a nation of laws, where ignorance of the law is not an excuse for non-compliance, the predefinition of this standard ought to be an absolute minimum prerequisite prior to enforcement. And for good reason.
Implicit in the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse is the expectation that statutes are drafted clearly and unambiguously, enabling citizens to understand the elements of an offense and comply without inadvertently violating the law. Removing the inherent ambiguity in the statute, would protect public safety while striking a balance between individual rights and regulatory oversight.
IV. VLT Standards: International Case Studies and Best Practices.
A more effective approach, adopted by countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, involves using objective Visible Light Transmission [VLT] standards. VLT measures the percentage of light passing through the glass. These countries have set specific VLT requirements for different vehicle windows, establishing objective standards that provide clarity and consistency in enforcing tinted glass regulations.
For example, the UK’s Road Vehicles [Construction and Use] Regulations 1986 specifies minimum VLT requirements:
Front windshield: 75% VLT
Front side windows: 70% VLT
Rear windows and rear passenger windows: No VLT requirement.
In the United States, VLT standards vary by state but typically require minimum VLT percentages for specific windows, as demonstrated by regulations in California and New York:
California:
Front windshield: 70% VLT
Front side windows: 70% VLT
Back side and rear windows: No VLT requirement
New York:
Front windshield: 70% VLT
Front side windows: 70% VLT
Back side and rear windows: No VLT requirement.
Canada: Canadian provinces have also adopted VLT standards, focusing on balancing safety, privacy, and enforcement.
Adopting a similar VLT-based approach in Nigeria can help address the vagueness inherent in the current legislation and align the country’s tinted glass regulations with established global best practices.
V. The Roadmap to an Objective Tinted Vehicle Regulation Standard- Legislative Amendment and/or Legal Challenge.
Contrary to the populist rhetoric prevalent on social media that erroneously targets law enforcement, it is unclear how any rational individual could fault or blame the police for enforcing or preparing to enforce any law as written* —in this case, the Motor Vehicles [Prohibition of Tinted Glass] Decree 1991. How could any rational mind attribute the subjective language and enforcement challenges within the decree to the police. Instead, the responsibility lies with the legislature to amend the statute.
Rather than participating in the national pastime of blame gaming, problems cataloging without any proposed solution, two viable options can be pursued to address these concerns, provided the objective is to seek rational solutions rather than engage in marketing drivel for popularity’s sake.
First, the National Assembly could amend the current legislation to adopt objective Visible Light Transmission [VLT] standards, thereby ensuring clarity and consistency in enforcing tinted glass regulations while aligning with established international practices. That’s at the federal level.
Second, at the state level, state attorneys general have a duty to their constituencies to uphold citizens’ rights. In this context, any one of them could challenge the existing Decree in court to safeguard vehicle owners from arbitrary treatment or extortion.
Both the legislature at the federal level and state attorneys general share a responsibility to uphold citizens’ right and protect citizens from potential harassment or extortion by police officers.
VI. Benefits of the Proposed Amendments to Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Decree No 6 of 1991.
The introduction of a predefined vehicle tinting standard through the proposed amendments would improve compliance among importers and purchasers of vehicles. Without an objective standard for permissible tinting, mandating the replacement of factory-tinted glass unfairly penalizes responsible importers and purchasers of such vehicles.
A predefined objective standard would safeguard law-abiding citizens from potential harassment or extortion by police officers, who, given the ambiguity of the current law, may, well, in reality, would undoubtedly exploit it to unjustly target, harass, and solicit bribes from vehicle owners, including those with factory-tinted glass.
Furthermore, it would promote transparency in enforcing tinted glass regulations, ensuring fairness for all parties—including police and law-abiding vehicle owners—and enhance public security. This balanced approach represents a win-win solution.
*Adeleke sent this piece from Abuja, and he is reachable through his email: [email protected]
Be the first to comment