News

Uproar As IGP, PSC Clash Over Retirement Of Police Officers

Published

1 year ago

February 7, 2025

Editor

The Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun’s order, countering the recent directive of the Police Service Commission, PSC, to officers who have attained 35 years in service or 60 years of age to proceed on retirement, has drawn the ire of senior retired officers, who kicked against the order.

Meanwhile, Public Relations Officer of the commission said that the IGP’s comment for further directive does not mean that he rejected the commission’s decision.

The PSC recently directed officers who have attained 35 years in service or 60 years of age, to immediately proceed on retirement from the force.

But according to a wireless message from the office of the Force Secretary, dated February 5, 2025, read, “INGENPOL strongly directs all officers affected by the PSC’s directive to stay action, pending further directive. This directive should be strictly complied with.”

Recall that last week, PSC’s spokesman, Mr. Ikechukwu Ani said the commission’s order followed a review of its earlier stance at the 24th plenary meeting in September 2017, allowing force entrants to use their date of enlistment instead of their initial appointment date.

The commission cited the inconsistency with Public Service Rule No. 020908 (i & ii), which mandates retirement upon spending 35 years in service or reaching 60 years of age as reasons for it’s decision.

The PSC, however, clarified that it lacks the constitutional authority to determine the appointment or retirement of the current IGP, Kayode Egbetokun.

Reacting to the IGP’s order, some retired Police officers including Deputy Inspector General of Police, DIGs, Assistant Inspector General of Police, AIGs and Comissioners of Police, CPs, insisted that the PSC directive is in line with civil service procedures.

Meanwhile, some of the officers affected by the PSC directive have dragged the commission to court.

I don’t see this as IGP rejecting our decision -PSC PRO

PSC’s spokeperson, Mr Ani, when contacted yesterday on the development, said: “We have conveyed this to the IGP. I saw the signal you are referring to. They mentioned that the IGP said they should hold on for further directives, and I don’t think it contradicts our decision, because there may be something he wants to put in place. They showed up for further directives, and I don’t see this as him rejecting the commission’s decision.”

It’s about self-preservation – Retired AIG

A retired Assistant Inspector General of Police, AIG, who pleaded to remain anonymous told Vanguard: “It’s unfortunate that the Force keeps finding herself in such awkward situations.

“I believe those caught up in this mess should have been allowed to exit the Force quietly without any back and forth.

“After all, the Military has been retiring their officers without much fuss about it.

“I believe these Force entrants should count themselves lucky to have attained their present rank, as they were promoted over and above their peers, who were toiling day and night shifts while they sneaked to study and acquire these qualifications most times without receiving approval to do so.

“That notwithstanding they want to stay put, claiming so called fresh appointment. The Public Service Rules quoted by the PSC is quite explicit.

“Most Force entrants usually exit the Force when they attained 60 or 35 years of service, so why the debate about it now?

“But curiously the IGP is also caught up in the same web, because should these guys leave, the pressure for him to leave might intensify,” he added.

IGP has no such powers to stop PSC -Retired DIG

Also, a etired Deputy Inspector General of Police, DIG, who preferred his name out of print, said: “The IGP has no power over PSC on that matter of retirement after serving 35 year or attaining 60 years.

“What we heard from the grapevine is that vested interests from above, are trying to shift the goal post for political reasons. The institution bears the brunt.”

It will cause low morale — Retired CP

A retired Commissioner of Police from one of the northern states, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “The IGP’s counter-order is wrong, and it will crash morale. Nepotism is getting worse, and it’s alarming.”

Also, another retired Assistant Inspector General from the South-West, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: “The focus on who benefits from legislative changes will lead to demoralization, which is counter-productive to the force’s effectiveness. In our days, even though we were under-funded, we tried not to give prominence to favoritism and nepotism.”

Affected serving officers sue PSC

Meanwhile, some Commissioners of Police, who left upon completion of 35 years but had not reached 60 years, threatened to fight for their recall or monetary compensation, since they were not up to 60 years at the time of retirement.

But one of them said: “This is playing out because it also affects the IGP. Already, there has been clamour for him to step down, having attained the Civil Service law on retirement.”

Another retired CP, who simply gave his name as Okey, said: “These reactions suggest that the IGP’s stance has sparked controversy and dissent within the Police Force, with many senior officers opposing the move as unjust and contradictory to the law.

“Already, four senior police officers, including three Assistant Inspectors-General, AIGs, and a Commissioner of Police, have filed a lawsuit against the PSC, challenging the directive.

“The lawsuit is likely to further exacerbate the tensions between the PSC and the police hierarchy, which has been simmering since the directive was issued.

“But it is worthy to note that the Act in question doesn’t explicitly state the retirement age or years of service, but it does mention that a retired police officer may be re-engaged for another period upon application. This re-engagement is subject to the approval of the IGP.

“There’s a proposal to create special retirement service years or age for police officers, different from the general norm in the civil/public service.

“It’s worth noting that the Act repealed the Police Act Cap. P19, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, aiming to provide a framework for the police force to ensure cooperation and partnership between the police and host communities,” he added.
(VANGUARD)

News

Xenophobic Attacks: Oshiomhole Tells FG To Retaliate Against South African Companies In Nigeria

Published

10 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has called on the Federal Government to retaliate against South African businesses operating in Nigeria following the recent attacks on Nigerians in South Africa.

Speaking during plenary on Tuesday, Oshiomhole said the Federal Government should consider revoking the working license of South African owned companies such as MTN and DSTV.

He argued that Nigeria must respond firmly to what he described as persistent hostility against its citizens.

“I am not going to shed tears. If you hit me, I hit you. I think it is appropriate in diplomacy. It is an economic struggle,” Oshiomhole said.

He argued that while some South Africans accuse Nigerians of taking their jobs, Nigerians should return home and take over employment opportunities created by major South African companies operating in the country, including MTN and DSTV.

“When we hit back, the President of South Africa will not only talk but will also go on his knees to recognise that Nigeria cannot be intimidated.

“We will not condone any life being lost. If a crime has been committed under the South African law they have the right to bring any such person to justice, but to kill our people as if we are helpless, we will not allow that,” Oshiomhole added.

DAILY POST reports that several Nigerians in South Africa have reportedly been attacked, and their businesses destroyed, in ongoing xenophobic attacks in the country.

News

IGP Orders Officers Display Name Tag On Uniform, Gives Update On State Police

Published

10 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The Inspector General of Police, IGP, Tunji Disu, has ordered all police personnel to always have their name tags on their uniforms for easy identification.

Disu disclosed that only police personnel who are undercover are exempted from displaying their name tags.

Speaking on Tuesday, Disu said: “All police officers should have their name tags. All of us on the high table have our names apart from the undercover among us so if you look at all the Commissioners of Police we have our name tags, so it’s not our standard.

News

Court Orders SERAP To Pay DSS Operatives N100m For Defamation

Published

15 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered a non-governmental organization, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, to pay N100 million as damaged to two operatives of the Department of the State Services, DSS, for unjustly defaming them in some publications.

The court also ordered SERAP to tender public apologies to the defamed officers,
Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, in two national newspapers, two television stations and its website.

Besides, the organization was also ordered to pay the two operatives N1 million as cost of litigation and 10 percent post-judgment interest annually on the judgment sum until it’s fully liquidated.

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory gave the order on Tuesday while delivering judgment in a N5.5 billion defamation suit instituted against SERAP by the DSS operatives.

The judge found SERAP liable for unjustly defaming the two DSS operatives with allegations that they unlawfully invaded its Abuja office, harassed and intimidated its staff, in September 2024.

In the offending publication on its website and Twitter handle, SERAP alleged that the two operatives unlawfully invaded and occupied its office with sinister motives.

The judge held that the publication was in bad taste especially from an organization established to promote transparency and accountability, as nothing in the publication was found to be truthful.

The DSS staff had listed SERAP as 1st defendant in the suit marked CV/4547/2024. SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, was listed as the 2nd defendant.

In the suit, the claimants – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – accused the two defendants of making false claims that they invaded SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024..

Counsel to the DSS, Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde, had while adopting his final address in the mater urged the judge to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the interest of justice.

He admitted that although the names of the two claimants were not mentioned in the defamation materials, they had however established substantial circumstances that they are the ones referred to in the published defamation article by SERAP on its website.

The counsel submitted that all ingredients of defamation have been clearly established and the offending publication referred to the two officials of the secret police.

However, SERAP, through its counsel, Victoria Bassey from Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, law firm, asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the two claimants did not establish that they were the ones referred to in the alleged defamation materials.

She said that SERAP used “DSS officials” in the alleged offending publication, adding that the two claimants must establish that they are the ones referred to before their case can succeed.

Similar arguments were canvassed by Oluwatosin Adefioye who stood for the second defendant, adding that there was no dispute in the September 9, 2024 operation of DSS in SERAP’s office.

He said that since SERAP in the publication did not name any particular person, the claimants must plead special circumstances that they were the ones referred to as the DSS officials.

Besides, he said that there is no organization by name Department of State Services in law, hence, DSS cannot claim being defamed adding that the only entity known to law is National Security Agency.

The claimants had in the suit stated that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on their reputation.

The DSS also stated, in the statement of claim, that, in line with the agency’s practice of engaging with officials of non-governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite them for a familiarization meeting.

The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.

John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.

They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle – @SERAPNigeria – that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.

The claimant added, “On the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).

John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN)”.

“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”

They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to their reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.

The claimants therefore prayed the court for the following reliefs: “An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5 billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.

“Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50 million as costs of this action.”