The High Court of Justice of Delta State, Orerokpe Judicial Division, has granted an interim injunction restraining the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Nigeria Police Force from implementing and enforcing the tinted glass permit policy scheduled to commence on January 2, 2026.

The order was issued yesterday by Justice Joe Egwu following a motion ex parte filed by Mr. Israel Joe and argued by a legal team led by Kunle Edun (SAN).

In the suit marked HOR/FHR/M/31/2025, the court granted three key interim injunctions pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.

The court restrained the first and second respondents, their officers, agents, privies and/or contractors from implementing, enforcing or further enforcing the tinted glass permit policy slated to take effect on January 2, 2026.

The court barred the respondents, their officers and agents 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, as well as those of other citizens and motorists, under the guise of enforcing the tinted glass permit policy.

Justice Egwu ordered substituted service of court processes on the IG and the police through the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Police Command, at the command headquarters in Asaba. The court ruled that such service shall be deemed good and proper service.

after hearing from counsel, the court granted the motion ex parte dated and filed December 17, 2025, as prayed.

The court has fixed December 24, 2025, for the hearing of the motion on notice.

Reacting to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)’s strong rejection of the enforcement announcement, the police, in what appeared to be a contradiction to an earlier announcement to begin enforcement on January 2, stated: “The administrative communication issued on December 15, 2025, was intended solely to guide internal planning and enhance public understanding.

It did not direct immediate enforcement actions, nor did it authorise conduct inconsistent with any subsisting court process.” (The Nation)