Kehinde Fajobi
Inspector General of Police Kayode Egbetokun has set up a disciplinary committee to address cases of senior police officers who have refused to retire despite reaching the mandatory 60 years of age or 35 years of service.
The committee, set to convene at Force Headquarters in Abuja from Tuesday, February 11 to Thursday, February 13, has summoned an Assistant Inspector General, two Commissioners of Police, and a senior police lawyer.
The officers have been instructed to appear in their official attire, with strict adherence to the daily dress code.
The move follows an earlier directive by the Police Service Commission (PSC), which ordered the immediate retirement of officers who had exceeded the legal service limits.
Ikechukwu Ani, PSC’s spokesperson, explained that the decision aligns with Public Service Rule No 020908, which mandates retirement at 35 years of service or age 60.
“The Commission has revisited its earlier position and concluded that it contradicted the principle of service merger in the public sector,” Ani stated. “The decision has been conveyed to the IGP for implementation.”
Some critics have questioned why the PSC is enforcing retirements while President Bola Tinubu extended Egbetokun’s tenure.
However, Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) defended the extension, stating that the president acted within the law.
Meanwhile, the National Industrial Court has adjourned a case filed by some affected officers challenging their retirement.
READ ALSO: AGF Fagbemi Affirms IGP Egbetokun’s Tenure Extension as Lawful
The plaintiffs, led by CSP Egong Egwu Egong and Edwin Okoro, argue that their service years should be counted from when they entered the Police Academy, not their initial enlistment date.
Their lawyer, Adeleke Agbola (SAN), urged the court to maintain the status quo until the committal proceedings determine whether the PSC’s decision violates an existing judgment.
“The judgment clearly states that service years should begin from entry into the Academy. There is no appeal against this ruling,” he argued.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 18.