By Kelvin Adegbenga
In recent days, there has been a deliberate misrepresentation circulating across various media platforms regarding the interim order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/WR/CS/103/2025: John Aikpokpo-Martins v. Inspector General of Police & Nigeria Police Force.
Many have been misled to believe that the court “restrained” the Nigeria Police Force from implementing or enforcing the new tinted glass permit policy set to commence on October 6, 2025.
This claim, however, is not entirely true, and as Nigerians, we must insist on accuracy, especially when it comes to judicial pronouncements.
The applicant, John Aikpokpo-Martins, acting on behalf of tinted-glass vehicle owners in Nigeria, has painted a misleading picture of what the court actually ruled. Contrary to his public statements, the Federal High Court did not grant all the reliefs sought in his ex parte application. In fact, the court refused the very heart of his request.
Specifically, Point 8 of the order, which reads, “Meanwhile, Reliefs 1, 2 and 3 are hereby refused,” was categorical. The reliefs refused were:
“An order of interim injunction restraining the Inspector General of Police and the Nigeria Police Force from implementing or enforcing the new tinted glass permit policy set to commence on October 6, 2025.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from stopping, harassing, arresting, detaining, impounding vehicles, or extorting motorists in the purported enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the Parkway Projects account (No. 4001017918) to collect any fees for renewal of tinted glass permits or for any government business.
All these reliefs were explicitly refused by the court. What the court granted was a simple order restraining further action by both parties pending the determination of the substantive suit, not a prohibition against the enforcement of the law itself. This distinction is crucial and cannot be twisted to suit any narrative.
The misinterpretation of a court order is not only unethical but also a direct affront to the integrity of the judiciary. Lawyers, as officers of the court, are bound by professional ethics to present judgements honestly and without manipulation. It is, therefore, worrisome that such misrepresentation has been allowed to spread unchecked, creating public confusion and undermining lawful policy enforcement.
For clarity, the Nigeria Police Force remains empowered under Section 66(2) of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2012, made pursuant to the Federal Road Safety Corps (Establishment) Act, to regulate the use of tinted glasses on vehicles. The current effort to revalidate and digitise tinted permit issuance is not only lawful but also necessary for national security and crime prevention.
Let it be known that no valid court order presently restrains the Nigeria Police Force from implementing the new tinted permit policy. What exists is a temporary procedural pause, pending the court’s full determination of the case.
The false impression that the police have been barred entirely is both legally and ethically irresponsible.
In conclusion, the legal profession thrives on truth, precision, and integrity. Lawyers, more than anyone else, must “come clean and clear” when interpreting judgements of the court.
Misleading the public on judicial pronouncements not only erodes public trust in the justice system but also invites sanctions under professional conduct rules.
The court has spoken, and it refused the interim relief sought. It is time the truth also spoke louder than deliberate misinformation.
Kelvin Adegbenga is the National Coordinator of the Integrity Youth Alliance and writes from Ikeja, Lagos State. email: kelvinadegbenga@yahoo.com X: @kelvinadegbenga
