Guyanese react to new national tint policy

Dec 04, 2025 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – With the new vehicle tint policy set to take effect nationwide on December 31, 2025, Guyanese, particularly drivers, are expressing mixed reactions.

Under the updated regulations, motorists found violating the tint limits will face stricter penalties, including a $75,000 fine.

Last week, Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond announced that drivers may now use tint allowing up to 35 per cent light penetration without requiring a waiver from her ministry. She explained that the measure applies uniformly, although restricted waivers will be introduced for high-security categories, including diplomats, government officials, and other persons specifically approved by the minister.

Following the announcement, Kaieteur News sought to hear from the “man in the street” of their reactions. Most respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the 35 per cent limit and criticised the heavy penalty, arguing that more serious traffic offences carry significantly lower fines. Below are some of their views:

Jeron Boucher, a frequent driver, supported the initiative, saying he was not surprised by the policy. “I think for security purposes police must be readily able to see the persons driving the car, because that dark tint could really be a mask/cover for nefarious activities. Secondly, I think the extremely dark tint contributed to a lot of the vehicular accidents that have been occurring as it is extremely difficult to see clearly through same especially in the nights. That being established, my personal thought on the matter is this policy should have been implemented a while ago, and I am in total support of it,” he said.

Another driver, S.N (Initials only given) also welcomed the change. “I think it’s good. It’s better than what we had previously.  We just need to see the penalties being applied to offenders equally. If one feels he needs a darker tint, there is a process that they need to go through to apply for that, which, if they truly believe they have good reason to get it, the process will grant them.”

Monique (only given name) supported updating the rules, but felt the 35 per cent limit was too light.  “As an ordinary citizen, I understand why the tint rules needed updating, while the 35 per cent limit is appreciated for bringing clarity and uniformity. It still seems a bit too light, considering our climate and daily life. Many of us use tint for heat, privacy, and a general sense of safety. What people really want is fairness. If we all have to adjust, then the rules should feel equal for everyone, not just some. We’re willing to follow the law, but it should also reflect the everyday reality of living and driving in Guyana,” she said.

Vieira (only given name) felt the government’s priorities were misplaced. “To me there are more serious things going on within the country right now and they are worrying about tint. Other countries allow persons to have tint on cars, the percentage does not matter as long as the front screen isn’t fully tinted eg. Jamaica. I mean in todays’ society with crime so high and all the road accidents, murder and domestic violence going on we are looking at tint. What you’re gonna see most police will still have tint and nothing will be done about it. I say if you want to implement a new law do it the right way and what goes for one must go for all not because we know someone, means I will get approved with a tint waver. It should be across the board. Only vehicles that should be heavenly tinted are the president’s cars.”

On the fine, Vieira added: “I don’t agree with that for more serious offense, the fine is not even half of that. Every day you on the road whether it be a passenger or driver and you blatantly see offenses being committed and police are sometimes right there and do or say nothing.”

Rawl Toney argued the policy was unrealistic. “I think the tint policy should be realistic.  Thirty-five per cent tint is almost like having no tint at all. I think when you look at other countries within the region like Barbados, their policy is a bit more realistic; 20 to 25 per cent respectively. There isn’t a clear measure where ordinary persons like me that troubles with light from the sun, there isn’t a clear way to say, okay fine what do I do? Do I go to the doctor to say this is my prescription so will I be allowed a tint waiver? Additionally, I think an outrage with the public would be the fine, it’s not necessarily the fine itself, its fining someone $75,000 for tint when there are numbers to prove that dangerous driving and speeding causes death and the fine for that is $7,500, I understand you want to put a harsh penalty, but there is no correlation to tint, accidents and crime.  I think a lot of people think that their priorities are mixed up and we believe they should find a realistic way to implement it. The honourable minister should find a way to deal with the common man where tint is concerned.”

Taxi driver Donald Primo said, “Well for me I find it ridiculous, not the fine but the 35 per cent minimum. I do agree that stricter penalty should be implemented for defaulters, however most drivers use tint to protect us from damages to both our car and person. We all know the sun don’t be easy in this country and a 35 per cent tint wouldn’t work even if the AC is running. I think whoever decided on the requirements for tint is someone that don’t normally be in a car or one that have special privileges for lower percentage. I recommend the minimum tint be between 15 and 20 per cent with our weather, it will still allow enough light through the car and people will be able to see through.”

Chris (only given name) argued that tint is a safety feature. “The new restrictions on window tint are concerning, given the clear practical benefits tint provides. In a country that is hot most of the year, tint is not cosmetic, it is a safety feature. It reduces glare on the dashboard, improves visibility, and lowers interior temperatures, helping prevent heat related discomfort and accidents. Tint, when used responsibly, does not create harm or contribute to conflict. A more thoughtful, climate-aware approach is needed. Reasonable levels of tint should remain to allow for the safety and comfort of drivers and passengers,” he said.

Timothy Jaisingh said, “The policy is not bad but the 35 per cent is too light and doesn’t give much privacy. A 20 per cent is great for privacy and still had great visibility; however, the 70 per cent could drop to a 45-50 per cent. But when it comes to the fine, very atrocious because why is it $75,000 for a piece of thin plastic, that only cost $2000? I strongly believe that the fine should be dropped to $10,000, because what if a person that is not financially stable gets charged? It’s Christmas time so that mean they’ll spend Christmas in jail instead of with their families over a thin piece of plastic?”

Tricia Nandalall said the 70 per cent windshield requirement offers little difference from having no tint. “To be exact the windshields they can try and do a better percentage 70 per cent is not much of a difference with tint and without. The sun still gets through that easily,” she said.

Zane Atherley criticised both the tint limit and fine. “For me I don’t think it’s the right move by the minister of home affairs. A fine being $75000 that’s just ridiculous. How can the other law-breaking charges be lower than 10k and tint of all things is so much money? For me 20 per cent on the driver and passenger side is reasonable and 5 per cent at the back is good.  As for windscreen 70 per cent is not good enough. The minister is complaining about being able to see in the vehicle and see out, when with 50 per cent you can see in someone vehicle and you can comfortably see out. It helps way better with the heat we are currently facing. I just believe things are unfair in the country and we are treated with little to no respect. While they are focusing on tint other major laws are being broken daily,” he said.

Taxi driver, Mark (only given name) argued that enforcement is inconsistent. “As a taxi driver when the sun is facing me, it could bother when I’m driving on the road.  And the penalty is bad because majority of the vehicles on the road, minibus driver, private car they can whatever tint they want, they don’t get pull in,” he said.

Taxi driver, Christian Porter strongly opposed the new limits. “The current tint that is being allowed on our vehicles will not do. First of all, 20 per cent across all glasses is the starting point for comfort and protection from harmful UV rays and etc. Having 70 per cent on the front screen is like having no tint on at all and the heat will submerge the vehicle burning the passenger and driver. So that tint legislation doesn’t make any sense. That’s just finding ways to make civilians’ lives much harder.  Ministers don’t drive without heavy tint and they will never change their minds because they are allowed to have what they want.  We Guyanese citizens shouldn’t settle for less,” he said.

---

• driver’s, Oneidge Walrond, policy, react, tint

---