Court Adjourns Ruling in Suit Against PSC and IGP Over ‘Forceful Retirement’ of Policemen

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja has adjourned its ruling in a suit filed by Course 18, 19, and 20 (force entrants) of the Police Academy, who are challenging their alleged forceful retirement by the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, and the Force Secretary.

The court had initially scheduled the ruling for Tuesday, but when the case was called, Justice R.B. Haastrup informed the parties that the ruling was not ready. Consequently, the ruling was adjourned to March 17, and the court ordered that hearing notices be served on the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the case.

The plaintiffs, comprising officers including ACP Chinedu Emengaha, ACP Victor Chilaka, ACP Egwu Otu, and others, are challenging their unlawful retirement from the Force before reaching the mandatory service years or retirement age. The suit also concerns the non-implementation of prior court judgments regarding their service terms.

In the previous proceedings, the defendants, represented by the PSC, IGP, and the Force Secretary, were noted as absent. However, their counsel had informed the court that the defendants would not be present due to other commitments outside the jurisdiction. Despite their absence, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Goddy Uche (SAN), pointed out that some of the claimants had been retired or had their ranks reduced, even though the matter was still pending in court.

The claimants have sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from retiring or suspending officers of Course 18, 19, and 20 who have not yet served 35 years of pensionable service or reached the mandatory retirement age of 60. They are also requesting that the court stop any suspension of their salary or postings while the case is ongoing.

The plaintiffs are praying the court for the following declarations:

1. That the dates of appointment for the claimants, as stated in their appointment letters, are not subject to review by the defendants.
2. That members of Cadet ASPs (force entrants) of Course 18, 19, and 20 who have not served 35 years of service or reached the age of 60 years are excluded from the PSC’s directive for immediate retirement of officers in this category, as per the January 31, 2025, meeting of the 1st defendant’s management board.
3. That the defendants cannot overturn the valid and existing judgments of the National Industrial Court, which affirm the claimants’ appointments as fresh and not a merger of service.
4. An order to set aside the PSC’s directive for the immediate retirement of officers from Courses 18, 19, and 20, as stated in the press release of January 31, 2025.
5. A perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from unlawfully reviewing the appointment dates of the Cadet ASPs and from retiring officers who have not yet reached the mandatory retirement age.

The claimants are seeking justice for what they view as unlawful actions by the PSC and the IGP, hoping the court will safeguard their rights and enforce the previous rulings regarding their employment terms. The case is set to continue with the next hearing scheduled for March 17, 2025.