NBA Cites Sub Judice, Accuses Police of Disrespecting Court’s Majesty in Tinted Glass Suit

By Eshiorameh Sebastian

The Nigerian Bar Association has issued a stern warning to the Nigeria Police Force, accusing it of preparing to disregard the authority of the courts over a new policy on tinted vehicle glass.

In a strongly worded letter to the Inspector General of Police, the Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) warned that any attempt to enforce the controversial tinted glass permit policy would be a gross act of contempt, as the matter is already before a judge.

The dispute centres on Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association against the Inspector General of Police.

The suit challenges the “legality, constitutionality and ultimately the lawfulness” of the new tinted glass permit rules, which the Police had announced would come into force on 2nd October.

Despite being served with court papers on 25th September, the NBA stated that various police commands and the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin, have continued to make public statements insisting the enforcement will proceed.

The NBA argued this was a direct challenge to the legal principle of sub judice, which forbids public commentary or action on a matter actively being considered by the courts.

The letter, signed by Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN, and Olukunle O. Edun, SAN, layed out the settled position of the law. It stated that a party served with a Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction has a “duty imposed on him by law to maintain the status quo ante bellum until the case is determined by the court one way or the other.” In simpler terms, the Police are legally obliged to keep things as they are and not introduce the new policy while the court case is pending.

To support its position, the NBA quoted a ruling from the Court of Appeal in the case of Okeke-Oba v. Okoye (1994), which held that, “The general practice is that an an application for an order of interlocutory injunction, all activities affecting the res… are automatically terminated as a mark of respect to the court before whom the application is pending.”

The letter further invoked the authority of the Supreme Court in Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990), which stated clearly that, “The rule of law and the rule of force are mutually exclusive.” The NBA emphasised that by pushing ahead with the policy, the Police were choosing the “rule of force” over the “rule of law.”

The Association did not limit its warnings to the institution of the Police alone. It singled out specific officers for personal liability. It described the press releases from CSP Benjamin Hundeyin as “contemptuous” and an “egregious act of disregard to and contempt for the majesty of the court.”

The NBA stated plainly, “The NBA will therefore not hesitate to commence contempt/committal proceedings against CSP Benjamin Hundeyin if he fails to desist from clear utterances meant to downplay the authority of the court in the public domain.”

Similarly, the Officer-in-Charge of the Directorate of Legal Services, AIG Ohiozoba O. Ehiede, was put on notice. The NBA advised him to offer “proper legal guidance” to the Police force, warning that failure to do so would lead to “disciplinary proceedings against him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).”

The letter from NBA-SPIDEL concludes with a final hope that the Inspector General of Police will “allow reason to prevail and act in accordance with the law by suspending the enforcement of the policy until the court decides the crucial question of its legality.” The ball is now in the court of the Police to either step back from the brink of a major constitutional confrontation or proceed and face the legal consequences.