The Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has responded to claims circulating on social media regarding a Federal High Court order on the enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy, stating they have not been officially served with the court processes.
The reaction came via the official X (formerly Twitter) handle of the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin on Saturday, after human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong posted excerpts of the court order.
Effiong’s post referenced an order from the Federal High Court sitting in Warri in the suit FHC/WR/CS/103/2025: John Aikpokpo-Martins v. Inspector General of Police & Nigeria Police Force.
The ruling reportedly directed the police to maintain the status quo and refrain from taking further action on the tinted glass regulation enforcement pending the determination of the case.
However, Hundeyin countered the public narrative, stating, “While we have not been officially served the court order you’re making reference to, let me, in the meantime, show point no. 8 (of the same order) since you left that part out and focused only on point no. 6. Nigerians deserve a complete picture, not a skewed one.”
Hundeyin highlighted Point 8 of the order, which reads: “Meanwhile, Reliefs 1, 2 and 3 are hereby refused.”
The reliefs that were refused were those sought by the applicant, John Aikpokpo-Martins, on behalf of tinted glass car owners in Nigeria. These included: an interim injunction to restrain the police from implementing the new tinted glass permit policy set to commence on October 6, 2025.
Also see: Bonny Council, Anglican Diocese Partner for Peace, Growth
Secondly an interim injunction to restrain the police from stopping, harassing, arresting, detaining, impounding vehicles, or extorting motorists over the permit policy.
Thirdly an interim injunction to restrain the police from using the Parkway Projects account (No. 4001017918) to collect fees for permit renewal or conduct other government business.
Leading counsel in the matter, Kunle Edun, confirmed the development, describing the overall court direction to maintain the status quo as “a major step in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens while the substantive issues are yet to be decided.”
