By Mark DaCosta- In recent statements regarding the enforcement of tint regulations on vehicles, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has welcomed the government’s commitment to reform, while also expressing grave concerns over the legality and preparedness of the Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond’s approach. The underlying principle is clear: the issue of tints on vehicles is far more complex than the administration’s piecemeal announcements suggest.
The crux of the matter reveals a legal dilemma that many citizens may not fully appreciate — the absence of formal legislation in our nation governing specific tint percentages. For years, the Guyana Police Force enforced established thresholds of 65 percent and 35 percent for light penetration on tinted windows based on internal operational practices, yet these figures were never formally codified into our Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations. This oversight essentially means that current enforcement lacks a solid legal foundation, throwing the government’s recent policy shifts into a state of confusion.
While the Minister’s initial focus on police officers’ vehicles may have aimed to showcase discipline and equity, the abrupt unveiling of a comprehensive national tint policy with new compliance guidelines and exemptions elicits questions about the administration’s planning and prioritisation. Legislative mechanisms are not mere formalities; they are essential for ensuring that laws are enforced fairly and transparently. As the APNU aptly points out, “Enforcement cannot precede legislation. A policy cannot outrun the law that is meant to empower it.” Without the necessary legal framework, these measures risk becoming arbitrary directives rather than enforceable standards.
Drawing parallels to the governance surrounding digital identity and migration policies, the APNU highlights a troubling pattern: critical areas of public policy seem to be introduced through public pronouncements, bypassing the deliberative processes of legislative scrutiny. Recent efforts to implement a Digital Identity Card system and collect biometric data have been underway despite the lack of requisite legal protections in place. This has raised alarms about the potential for abuse and the undermining of citizens’ rights.
Moreover, the government’s hastiness to enforce new residency requirements and penalties for employers of migrants without a grounding framework further exemplifies this trend. It underscores a troubling administrative practice of launching policy without proper parliamentary debate or oversight, leaving citizens and stakeholders in a precarious position.
APNU members firmly contend that governance must take place within parameters established by law. The right to scrutiny and debate is fundamental in a democratic society. Sherod Duncan, APNU Shadow Minister of Home Affairs, has voiced the resolute stance that, “Guyana deserves a tint policy, and a digital policy, and a migration policy that is anchored in lawful process, democratic oversight, and respect for the rule of law.” The insistence on lawfulness over improvisation not only affirms the necessity of legislative compliance but reinforces the dignity and rights of all citizens.
Although there is merit in establishing clear and fair regulations for vehicle tints for the sake of public safety and governance, these initiatives should not come at the expense of established legal processes. The APNU has expressed willingness to collaborate on legislative reforms to ensure that clarity, fairness, and safety prevail in tint regulation. However, they stand firm against any attempt by the current government to sidestep the essential legislative processes that ensure the accountability of its actions.
In a time when our country urgently needs effective governance grounded in law, the risk of hastily enacted policies stirs apprehension. Citizens should demand transparency and accountability from their leaders, particularly when their rights could be at risk. Our nation deserves coherent policies that are not merely reactions to public pressure or administrative zeal, but rather products of careful consideration, legislative oversight, and respect for the rule of law.
