THE Ministry of Police Affairs recently directed the enforcement of an extant law prohibiting the use of tinted glasses on motor vehicles, citing abuse of road traffic regulations. The Ministry in its public notice also stated that factory- tinted glasses are exempted from the ban. However, in offering one month of grace to owners to remove the film shades, the Ministry seems unfair to authorized users whose police permits are still valid. In fact some vehicle owners got permits from the same implementing authority – the police, shortly before the ban.

The confusion that has been generated is traceable either to official ineptitude or inconsistency. We believe the Minister’s directive ought to have accommodated valid permits, at least until their expiry dates, while the police move to enforce illegal usage. This is another instance of the usual half-hearted approach to the enforcement of most traffic regulations, which are only effective in the first few weeks of their announcement.  Thereafter, law enforcement agents compromise the same rules.

According to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act 1991, an offence is committed if a vehicle owner causes “any glass fitted on a motor vehicle to be tinted or shaded or coloured lightly or thickly, or darkened; or treated in any other way… so that the persons or objects in the motor vehicle are rendered obscure or invisible”. Any unauthorized user faces arrest and prosecution.

But what is the guarantee that a two-decade old law will be enforced now after years of compromise by the authorities? Besides, how are we sure another police chief would be interested in continuity after the current exercise?

The Act provides that offenders shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of N2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, “or to both such fine and imprisonment”. The chief executives of corporate bodies and/or their agents are also liable. It is hoped that the seemingly light punishment has not encouraged infractions.

In addition, we hope that the law enforcement agents would be bold to perform their oversight function of sanctioning breaches, including any by military and police officers, and keep to the “no sacred cow” threat issued by the ministry.

Police Affairs Minister, Humphrey Abah, who directed the enforcement had listed the President, Vice-President, Governors, Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker, House of Representatives and his deputy, and the Majority Leader as the only exemptions.

The Inspector-General of Police is still the implementing authority. But then we are worried that the recent directive is emanating from the office of the Minister, and not the police chief whose officers are supposed to enforce the law.

In the past, similar orders given by the Inspector General of Police were not enforced. As with many other laws, the problem has always been the implementation. How far can the authorities go this time? Only an impartial and committed pursuit of the law would bring results or make any difference. Consistency is required in rules enforcement and sustenance. Double standards are undesirable in the application of laws in a society. That could be a major hindrance to justice and fairness.

It is a fact for instance that the legislation guiding motorcycles operation (regarding crash helmets and limited passengers) continues to be flouted with impunity, months after it came into force. Also, up till today, a few cars are still found on the road with right-hand steering, almost 38 years after traffic rules stipulated that only left-hand steered vehicles are allowed. Perhaps the only enduring traffic regulation today is the compulsory use of seat belts as required by the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC).

Abah’s argument is that the current situation whereby windshield and side glasses of seven out of ten vehicles are shaded poses a great challenge to security operatives. It can also be argued, as he did, that drivers of tinted vehicles constitute a risk to passengers and other road users because the films preclude the observance of minimum safety standards. In many instances, the motorists are unable to make effective use of rear-view mirrors.

Some vehicle owners have argued that tinted glasses allow for more privacy or that they shade the interior of vehicles against intense sunlight. In reality, many motorists just want to show off.

Not a few persons have however argued that if criminals move round in screened vehicles, it is the job of the police to track them down. Security is a joint responsibility of every citizen. Vehicle owners who are not immune to criminal activities of social miscreants can therefore assist in policing the society by avoiding acts that complicate security work, especially in a society where the culture of giving useful information or tips to security men on suspicious movements is not deeply entrenched.

No doubt, those who tint vehicle glasses for ulterior motives should be condemned for their actions. The ministry and the police departments should step up public enlightenment even as the enforcement of the ban is being pursued. In the same vein, law enforcement officers should not see the revived law as an opportunity to harass or extort money from motorists.

Posted by admin on Mar 25 2011. Filed under Headlines. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry