The court issued this ruling in a case numbered FHC/WR/CS/103/2025: John Aikpokpo-Martins v. Inspector General of Police & Nigeria Police Force.
The Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, on Friday ordered the Nigeria Police Force and its Inspector-General, Kayode Egbetokun, to maintain the status quo in the controversial tinted glass permit case that has pitted motorists against security operatives nationwide.
The court issued this ruling in a case numbered FHC/WR/CS/103/2025: John Aikpokpo-Martins v. Inspector General of Police & Nigeria Police Force.
The court directed the police to respect judicial processes and refrain from enforcing or altering the disputed policy until the matter is fully determined.
The court also warned that any act undermining its authority would amount to contempt.
The ruling comes two days after the Nigerian Bar Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) issued a scathing warning to the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun.
The body accused the Force of showing reckless disregard for the rule of law by insisting on enforcing the controversial tinted glass permit policy despite a pending court case challenging its legality.
In a letter addressed to the IGP on Wednesday, NBA-SPIDEL disclosed that it had already filed Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025, Incorporated Trustees, Nigerian Bar Association v. Inspector General of Police & Anor, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking to determine the constitutionality and lawfulness of the policy.
According to the letter, advance copies of the originating summons and a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction were served on the Police Directorate of Legal Services as far back as September 25, 2025.
The association described the development as an attempt to foist “a situation of helplessness” on the court, warning that the police cannot take the law into their own hands while the matter is still under judicial consideration.
Quoting relevant case law, NBA-SPIDEL reminded the police that: “The general practice is that an application for an order of interlocutory injunction, all activities affecting the res, here the land in dispute, are automatically terminated as a mark of respect to the court before whom the application is pending. Such practice is encouraged by counsel in good chambers consistent with the ethics of the profession.”
It added that the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that once a dispute is before a court, parties cannot take the law into their own hands.
According to the NBA, in the case of Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990), the appellant erected a fence around the disputed land during ongoing proceedings, which the High Court ordered removed.
It noted that this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, emphasising that the rule of law must prevail over the use of force, and that lawful resolution through the courts cannot be circumvented by unilateral actions.
About the Author
