Public commentary on whether senior Deputy Inspectors General of Police, including DIG Frank Mbah, ought to resign following the appointment of Assistant Inspector General Tunji Disu as Acting Inspector General has generated significant debate. Some commentators have questioned the President’s decision to appoint Mr. Disu when there are other eminently qualified DIGs who are his seniors. A dominant narrative suggests that because Disu was appointed over his seniors, those senior officers are expected to step aside. That expectation, however longstanding, has no foundation in law.
In Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, tenure in public service is governed by statute. It is not determined by institutional habit, tradition, or historical convention. The governing law in this instance is the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, which regulates appointment, service, and retirement within the Force.
Section 18(8) of the Act provides in clear terms that every police officer shall retire upon attaining the age of sixty years or after completing thirty five years of pensionable service, whichever comes first. These are the only statutory triggers for retirement. The provision is precise and leaves no room for administrative expansion. There is no section of the Act that provides that an officer must retire because a junior colleague has been appointed above him. Where legislation expressly stipulates retirement conditions, additional grounds cannot be introduced by custom or internal practice.
This position was firmly reinforced by the National Industrial Court in Moses Ambakina Jitoboh v. Police Service Commission (NICN/ABJ/274/2023), delivered on 13 January 2025. The facts of that case are particularly instructive. The claimant was a serving Deputy Inspector General of Police who had enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force in 1994. In August 2023, he was issued a letter of compulsory retirement following the appointment of a junior officer as Inspector General. At the time of his retirement, he had neither attained the age of sixty nor completed thirty five years of pensionable service. Statutorily, he still had several years left in service.
The Police Service Commission sought to justify the retirement on grounds that included “status reversal” and certain alleged disciplinary concerns. However, the court carefully examined those justifications and found that they were not supported by evidence of misconduct, nor were they grounded in any statutory authority permitting retirement outside the conditions prescribed by Section 18(8) of the Police Act. The court further scrutinised the Commission’s internal minutes and purported policy directing retirement in such circumstances and held that such internal resolutions had no force of law where they conflicted with express statutory provisions and the Public Service Rules.
In a decisive ruling, the court declared the compulsory retirement letter unlawful, null, and void. It held that the claimant remained a serving DIG until he reached his statutory retirement date, which on the evidence would have been in June 2029 upon completion of thirty five years of service. The court ordered his reinstatement and directed the payment of all outstanding salaries and entitlements from the date of the wrongful retirement. In addition, the court awarded ₦50 million in general damages for the embarrassment, stigma, and hardship caused by the unlawful action, along with costs.
The significance of this judgment cannot be overstated. It did not merely comment on the impropriety of the practice; it judicially invalidated it and imposed substantial financial consequences for non compliance with the statute. Until overturned on appeal, the decision stands as binding authority that retirement outside the statutory age or years of service criteria is unlawful.
Recent reports have identified several senior Deputy Inspectors General who may be affected by the appointment of the Acting Inspector General, including Frank Mbah, Mohammed Gumel, Adebola Hamzat, Yahaya Abubakar, Basil Idegwu, Bzigu Kwazhi, Idris Abubakar, and Adebowale Williams. Public discourse suggests that tradition dictates their retirement. Yet, unless any of them has attained sixty years of age or completed thirty five years of pensionable service, there is no lawful basis for compelling their exit under Section 18(8) of the Police Act.
The distinction between voluntary resignation and legal compulsion is crucial. An officer may choose to resign for personal or professional reasons. That is entirely different from being required to do so by law. A longstanding institutional practice does not acquire legal validity merely through repetition. As the court has now clarified, it cannot override express statutory safeguards.
The broader constitutional principle at stake is the supremacy of law. Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, establishes that the Constitution is supreme and binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation. Administrative expectations, internal hierarchy, or unwritten conventions cannot displace clear legislative provisions. Every exercise of public power must be traceable to an enabling law.
Section 7(6) of the Police Act provides a four year tenure for a person appointed as Inspector General of Police. That provision governs the tenure of the Inspector General alone. It does not create a corresponding obligation for other officers to vacate office upon his appointment. The retirement framework in Section 18(8) applies uniformly to all officers, including those at the rank of Deputy Inspector General.
At its core, this matter is not about personalities or institutional rivalry. It is about fidelity to statute and respect for judicial authority. If the law prescribes only two grounds for retirement, then those are the only grounds that can justify it. Introducing a third ground based solely on tradition would contradict the Police Act and run afoul of binding judicial precedent.
Frank Mbah and other senior DIGs are therefore entitled, as a matter of law, to remain in service until they attain sixty years of age or complete thirty five years of pensionable service, whichever comes first. That is what the statute provides. That is what the National Industrial Court has affirmed. And in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, that position must prevail.
By Etaba Agbor, Esq.
Etabaagbor@gmail.com
