Read the full statement issued by APNU’s Sherod Duncan:
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) notes the recent public pronouncements of the Minister of Home Affairs concerning both the enforcement of tint regulations and the introduction of a new national “tint policy.” Efforts aimed at improving clarity and fairness in tint governance are, in principle, welcome.
Citizens deserve a system that is predictable, free from inconsistency, and not vulnerable to abuse, whether by motorists, enforcement ranks, or administrative officers. However, the manner in which these policy shifts are being introduced raises significant questions about the coherence, legality, and readiness of the Government’s approach.
What we are witnessing is not a sequenced, well-planned reform, but a string of piecemeal announcements. The Minister first issued instructions targeting police ranks about tint on their own private vehicles, invoking themes of discipline and equity.
Only days later, she unveiled a far broader and more sweeping national tint policy, complete with new thresholds, “risk categories,” compliance deadlines, and promises of upcoming legislative amendments. This sequence does not reflect a structured policymaking process. Instead, it appears reactive, a string of directives meant to respond to public pressure rather than the product of deliberate planning.
My own technical advisor on policing and traffic regulation has confirmed what many motorists may not know: there is no legislation in Guyana prescribing specific tint percentages.
The commonly referenced 65% or 35% light-penetration thresholds evolved as internal operational practices within the Guyana Police Force and were never formally inserted into the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations through the required legislative mechanism.
It was a practice that came about, but the relevant legislation as it relates to tinted windows does not reflect those percentages. This is a crucial point. If the Minister herself acknowledges that the “tint law” must be updated, then she cannot simultaneously declare that new standards, new allowances, and new waiver systems take immediate effect. Enforcement cannot precede legislation. A policy cannot outrun the law that is meant to empower it.
Unfortunately, the tint policy is not the only area in which we now see this pattern emerging. Guyana’s digital-governance architecture presents an even more worrying example. Two major pieces of legislation, the Digital Identity Card Act and the Data Protection Act, have been passed by the National Assembly but have not been brought into force. Yet the Government has already begun registering public servants, collecting biometric data, and issuing digital ID cards. Senior officials have gone further, indicating that the Digital ID will soon be mandatory for employment, banking, remittances, and access to government services, all without the legal protections those Acts were designed to provide.
A similar drift is visible in migration policy. Announcements have been made about new residency requirements, penalties for employers, and biometric tracking of migrants, even though no Migration Bill, White Paper, or policy framework has been laid before Parliament.
These are not isolated instances of administrative zeal. They represent a troubling model of governance in which national systems are launched through public announcements while the legislation needed to regulate and legitimize them is treated as an afterthought.
It is for this reason that the tint policy, though not inherently objectionable in its stated goals, cannot be viewed in isolation. It fits into a larger and increasingly familiar pattern where the executive branch governs by directive rather than by statute; where public compliance is demanded before parliamentary oversight; and where the rights and protections of citizens are treated as secondary to administrative convenience.
If the Government is serious about modernizing tint regulation, then the correct path is clear. It must table the required amendments to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations, publish the technical basis for any proposed standards, and ensure that enforcement measures are implemented only after Parliament has debated and approved the necessary changes. The same principle must apply across all national systems, digital identification, migration governance, election administration, and every other sector where the rights of citizens are affected.
APNU remains ready to support reforms that improve fairness, transparency, and public safety. But we will continue to insist that such reforms be grounded in law, not improvisation; in Parliament, not press conferences; and in a governance model that respects the rights and dignity of every Guyanese.
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.
Is Parliament open for the people’s business?
