Interim Injunction Blocking Muhammad Rene Schwarze’s Deportation Extended Until October

The High Court on Thursday extended an interim injunction preventing the deportation of Muhammad Rene Schwarze until Oct. 21, 2026, when the court is scheduled to hear both the government’s application to set aside the order and Schwarze’s substantive legal challenge to the deportation decision.

Justice Sonia Akinbiyi ruled that maintaining the temporary protection was necessary to preserve the status quo while the court considers the merits of the case.

The injunction, first granted on July 2 through an ex parte application, has now been extended for a third time.

When the matter was called, neither Schwarze nor the respondents—the Minister of Justice and the Director General of Immigration—were present in court. Schwarze was represented by Counsel K. Jallow, while the state was represented by State Counsel Agie Ramatoulie Dambelly.

Dambelly informed the court that the state had filed a Memorandum of Appearance and requested additional time to respond, saying the respondents had only been served with court documents the previous Friday.

She also argued that the interim injunction should not have been granted without first giving the government an opportunity to be heard, contending that procedural fairness required the state to respond before such an order was issued.

Jallow opposed the request, noting that the interim injunction was due to expire that day. She argued that granting an adjournment without extending the order would expose her client to immediate deportation before the court could determine the substantive case.

She further submitted that the appropriate legal remedy for the government was to challenge the ex parte order on the return date rather than seek an adjournment that would effectively render the injunction meaningless.

In her ruling, Justice Akinbiyi rejected the state’s request to delay the matter without preserving the interim protection, finding that such an approach would undermine the purpose of the injunction.

The judge said the ex parte application was intrinsically linked to the substantive Originating Summons challenging the legality of the deportation order, noting that both applications relied on the same factual foundation.

She explained that the temporary injunction was granted because of the urgency of preventing Schwarze’s removal from the country before the court could hear the substantive challenge.

Justice Akinbiyi said allowing the interim order to lapse while the state sought additional time would expose the applicant to deportation before his case could be heard, defeating the very purpose of the proceedings and offending the principles of natural justice.

She therefore granted the government’s request for additional time to respond but only on the condition that the interim injunction remain in force until the next hearing. The judge also declined to vacate the ex parte order, finding the state’s application lacked merit at this stage.

Although the court declined to set aside the injunction on Thursday, the government’s formal Motion on Notice, dated July 15 and supported by an affidavit and exhibits, remains pending. The motion seeks to vacate, discharge and set aside the July 2 ex parte order and will be argued on Oct. 21.

Schwarze’s lawsuit challenges the deportation order on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice. His legal team argues that he should not be removed from the country before the court determines whether the deportation decision was lawfully made.

The matter was adjourned to Oct. 21, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., when the High Court is expected to hear both the state’s application to discharge the interim injunction and the substantive challenge to the legality of Schwarze’s deportation.