The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) has vowed to commence contempt proceedings against Force Public Relations Officer Benjamin Hundeyin if he fails to desist from alleged impugning of the majesty of Nigerian courts.
In a press statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the association stated that it is aware of “a contemptuous press release” issued by Hundeyin “presenting the Nigeria Police Force as obstinately proceeding with the enforcement of the policy despite the pendency in court of the suit challenging the legality of same.”
It warned that “the action of Mr. Hundeyin inciting the enforcement of the policy which is subjudice is an egregious act of disregard to and contempt for the majesty of the court,” adding that “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.”
Turning to its member and the Officer-in-Charge of the Directorate of Legal Services AIG Ohiozoba O. Ehiede, it admonished the police chieftain cum senior lawyer “to offer the proper legal guidance on this issue, which advise (sic) must be one that must guide the Nigeria Police Force to uphold the rule of law and not to tamper with the subject matter of the pending suit.”
It again warned that “NBA SPIDEL will not hesitate to commence disciplinary proceedings against him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) in the event that he encourages disrespect to the authority of the court by advising the police to proceed with the enforcement of the policy.”
The NBA stated that “Having regard to this above position of the law as magisterially laid down by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, it is very clear that the pendency of SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025 should automatically put a stop to the enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy pending the time when the court would arrive at a decision on the questions raised for determination in the Originating Summons, one way or the other.
“Consequently, we admonish your good office to allow the rule of law to prevail by halting any further attempt to enforce a policy whose legality is a subject for judicial determination.”
Below is the full text of the statement.
1st October 2025
The Inspector General of Police,
Nigeria Police Force,
Police Force Headquarters,
Louis Edet House,
Garki Area 11,
Abuja.
Dear Sir,
FURTHER NOTIFICATION OF THE PENDENCY OF SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025 BETWEEN: INCORPORATED TRUSTEES, NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION V. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANOR: DEMAND FOR ABATEMENT OF ACTS OF DISREGARD TO THE MAJESTY OF THE COURT OF LAW AND NOTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION OF NBA-SPIDEL TO PROCEED IN CONTEMPT AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ERRING OFFICERS OF THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE
Further to our letter dated and received by your good office on the 25th September 2025, the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) wishes, for the second time, to invite your attention to the pendency of Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025 Between the Incorporated Trustees, Nigerian Bar Association v. Inspector General of Police & Anor filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division which challenges the legality, constitutionality and ultimately the lawfulness of the tinted glass permit policy recently introduced by your good office and its enforcement scheduled to commence on the 2nd day of October 2025. Advance copies of the Originating Summons and Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction have been served on the Directorate of Legal Services on the 25th September 2025.
However, despite the fact that your good office has been served with advance copies of the Originating Summons and Motion on Notice for injunction, there have been several statements from the Public Relations Department of the Nigeria Police Force particularly authored by the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin and some state police commands across the country, suggesting, albeit very worrisomely, that the Nigeria Police Force would proceed to commence enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy tomorrow the 2nd October 2025.
Kindly permit us to restate the settled and ubiquitous position of the law that a party served with an Originating Process and especially a Motion on Notice for 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 order words, the party on whom a motion for injunction has been served has a duty to keep the state of things the way they were at the time he was served with the motion in order to not foist a situation of helplessness on the court. In the case of Okeke-Oba v. Okoye (1994) 8 NWLR (pt. 364) 605 at 617-618, the Court of Appeal held thus on the need for parties to maintain status quo:
“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.”
More succinctly, the Supreme Court put the majestic seal of authority on this position of the law in the case of Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 158) 514 thus:
“During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court the appellant took the unauthorized step of erecting a fence round the land in dispute. When this was brought to the notice of the court, the court, in dismissing the claim, ordered the removal of the fence. This order was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The dispute in this matter having been handed over to the court for determination, the appellants cannot be allowed to take the law into their hands. The rule of law and the rule of force are mutually exclusive – Law rules by reason and morality, force rules by violence and immorality. See The Military Governor of Lagos State & Anor v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu & Anor (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 621.”
Having regard to this above position of the law as magisterially laid down by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, it is very clear that the pendency of SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1821/2025 should automatically put a stop to the enforcement of the tinted glass permit policy pending the time when the court would arrive at a decision on the questions raised for determination in the Originating Summons, one way or the other.
Consequently, we admonish your good office to allow the rule of law to prevail by halting any further attempt to enforce a policy whose legality is a subject for judicial determination.
The NBA is aware of a contemptuous press release issued by the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Benjamin Hundeyin presenting the Nigeria Police Force as obstinately proceeding with the enforcement of the policy despite the pendency in court of the suit challenging the legality of same. We wish to make it clear that the action of Mr. Hundeyin inciting the enforcement of the policy which is subjudice is an egregious act of disregard to and contempt for the majesty of the court. 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 is advised to offer the proper legal guidance on this issue, which advise must be one that must guide the Nigeria Police Force to uphold the rule of law and not to tamper with the subject matter of the pending suit. NBA SPIDEL will not hesitate to commence disciplinary proceedings against him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) in the event that he encourages disrespect to the authority of the court by advising the police to proceed with the enforcement of the policy.
We hope that your good office 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.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN
Chairman, NBA-SPIDEL
Olukunle O. Edun, SAN
Chairman, NBA-SPIDEL Public Interest Litigation Committee
