Nigeria Police at Crossroads: Reconciling Judicial Decisions with the Public Service Rules
The Nigeria Police Force faces an uncomfortable choice. It can implement court judgments that, on the face of the
Public Service Rules, allow officers to serve beyond the retirement limit. Or it can defend those rules and risk
accusations of disobeying the courts. How the government resolves this will shape police discipline, public finances
and the credibility of the civil service.
How the dispute began
The officers at the center of this case joined the Force as recruit constables. After five to ten years, many earned
university degrees and were appointed Cadet Assistant Superintendents of Police (ASPs) as “force entrants,”
alongside fresh graduates who came in as “direct entrants.” These are Courses 18, 19 and 20 of the Police Academy,
Kano.
For decades, nobody disputed that their years of service began on the day they were enlisted as constables. The
Police Act 2020 (section 18(8)) and Rule 020810 of the Public Service Rules set compulsory retirement at 60 years
of age or 35 years of service, whichever comes first. On January 31, 2025, the Police Service Commission approved
the retirement of officers who had passed either threshold.
Then, as these officers reached 35 years from their enlistment dates, a new claim emerged: that their service should
be counted from the date they were appointed ASPs. The police have described the document cited as the basis for
this claim as non-existent. If the claim holds, years of service already rendered would be erased, and officers who
had reached the limit would be allowed to stay.
How the courts came to rule for the officers
A group of the affected officers sued at the National Industrial Court. Among them were officers who had worked in
the Force’s own legal section, people who understood these records and procedures well. On September 30, 2025,
the court declared the mass retirement unlawful and ordered reinstatement with salaries and allowances.
The way the Force was represented in that litigation deserves scrutiny. In my view, the case was defended poorly by
interested parties. The Police Service Commission, which is responsible for appointments into the Force, did not
step in to protect the rules it is meant to uphold. The court decided on the evidence before it. A judge can rule only
on what is placed on record, and where the record is incomplete or one-sided, the outcome can be wrong.
The appeal fared no better. By my account it was not properly pursued, and the Force lost again. An appeal by the
former Inspector-General and the Force Secretary was struck out in March 2026.
The reversal, and a new order
After the judgments, the Police Service Commission moved to have the Inspector-General absorb the retired officers
back into service. Reports put the number at over 470, with a six-month induction course.
An NGO then went to court to challenge this change of policy. On September 22, 2026, the National Industrial Court
issued an ex parte order restraining the IGP, the Force and the Commission from going ahead with reinstatement.
The police complied. The officers have gone back to court to challenge that order.
The Force is therefore caught between two court positions. Contempt of court is a serious matter, and no one
should treat it lightly. But a judgment obtained on an incomplete record should be challenged properly, and where an
appeal was botched, the state must find a lawful way to put the matter right.
What is at stake
Public money. Taxpayers would be paying salaries, allowances and arrears to officers who had already retired.
Some of them, reportedly, have already accessed their pensions. Keeping them in service means paying twice for
the same people.
The integrity of the civil service. Retirement rules exist so that every public servant is treated alike. If officers can
stay beyond 35 years on the strength of a disputed way of counting their service, others across the civil service will
cite the same ruling. A rule that bends for one group stops being a rule.
Police effectiveness. Policing is physically demanding and it is run by command. Putting officers who are well past
the retirement threshold back in senior positions weakens leadership at the top of the structure just when it needs to
be strong.
Morale and discipline. Serving officers who have waited years for promotion would lose seniority to colleagues who
had already left. That is a recipe for resentment and, in the worst case, protests, breakdown of discipline, and even
confrontations between serving and recalled officers. The Force can ill afford any of that, least of all before the
coming general elections, when it will be asked to deliver security at scale.
State police. As the country moves toward state police, officers will be seconded from the federal Force to staff the
new structures. If the ruling stands, those seconded or recruited may cite it to claim longer service and higher
seniority. A new system built on a disputed precedent will start with disputes over its own staffing, and could stall
the project.
A way forward
Respect for the courts and respect for the rules do not have to conflict. Where a judgment appears to have been
reached on an incomplete record, and the appeal was not properly pursued, the answer is a proper, authoritative
interpretation of the rules, not quiet compliance and not defiance.
The President should immediately set up a committee comprising the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Head
of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police and the Police Service Commission. Its job
would be to state clearly the body and spirit of the Public Service Rules on employment and retirement, including
how years of service are counted for officers who rose from the ranks into cadet officer entry. The committee’s
findings should guide the Force’s next steps and the government’s position in any pending proceedings.
The aim is not to punish any officer or to undermine the courts. It is to make sure the rules that bind every other
public servant bind these officers too, and that a decision made on a thin record does not become the law for the whole public service.
