The High Court of Justice of Delta State, Orerokpe Judicial Division, has issued an interim injunction restraining the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, and the Nigeria Police Force from proceeding with the implementation and enforcement of the controversial tinted glass permit policy scheduled to commence on January 2, 2026.
The order was granted on Wednesday by Justice Joe Egwu following a motion ex parte filed by a concerned citizen, Mr. Israel Joe. The applicant’s legal team was led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kunle Edun.
In the suit marked HOR/FHR/M/31/2025, the court granted three key interim orders pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application. The first restrains the IGP, the police, and their agents “from implementing, enforcing or further enforcing the tinted glass permit policy slated to take effect on January 2, 2026.”
The second order specifically bars the police from “stopping, harassing, arresting, detaining, extorting or otherwise interfering with the applicant’s constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, freedom of movement and ownership of property” under the guise of the policy. This protection was expressly extended to cover “other citizens and motorists.”
Justice Egwu also ordered substituted service of all court processes on the IGP and the Nigeria Police Force, directing that they be served through the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Command, at the headquarters in Asaba. This service was deemed sufficient by the court.
The judge, after hearing the arguments of the applicant’s counsel, granted the motion as prayed. The court has adjourned the case to December 24, 2025, for the hearing of the motion on notice.
This legal development follows widespread public criticism and a strong rejection of the policy by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). The NBA had earlier condemned the announcement, labeling it an attempt to “institutionalise extortion and legitimise harassment.”
In a statement reacting to the backlash last week, the police appeared to contradict their initial enforcement announcement, claiming the December 15 communication was “intended solely to guide internal planning and enhance public understanding.” The statement added it “did not direct immediate enforcement actions, nor did it authorise conduct inconsistent with any subsisting court process.”
However, the applicant’s move to secure a court injunction indicates a lack of public trust in the police’s clarification and a pre-emptive legal strike against the policy’s potential enforcement.
The court’s interim injunction now places a legal barrier against the rollout of the policy, pending further judicial determination.
Discussion about this post