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 its 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 Commissioners 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.

PSC?s spokesperson, 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.?

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.

Also, a retired 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.?

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.?

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)

Update news