The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), sitting in Abuja, adjourned its ruling on Tuesday in the case filed by Course 18, 19, and 20 (Force Entrants) of the Police Academy, who are challenging their forced retirement from the Nigeria Police Force by the Police Service Commission (PSC), Inspector General of Police (IGP), and the Force Secretary.
Originally scheduled for a ruling on Tuesday, the trial judge, Justice R. B. Haastrup, announced that the decision was not ready. As a result, the court adjourned the ruling to March 17, with instructions to serve hearing notices on the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Chief Goddy Uche, SAN, who represents the claimants, informed the court that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who were absent from the hearing, had reduced the rank of some claimants and retired them from service while the case was still pending in court.
Despite the absence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the judge noted that during the last court session, the defendants had informed the court they would not be present for the ruling due to prior commitments outside the jurisdiction, which the court had allowed.
The claimants—ACP Chinedu Emengaha, ACP Victor Chilaka, ACP Egwu Otu, CSP Sylvester Ebosele, CSP Sunday Okuguni, CSP Asuquo Inyang, CSP Kalu Chikozie, and CSP Adetu Omoteso—are suing the PSC, IGP, and the Force Secretary (the 1st to 3rd defendants) over their unlawful retirement from the Nigeria Police Force before reaching the mandatory retirement age or serving the required years of service. They also claim non-implementation of a previous court judgment.
The plaintiffs, representing all members of Courses 18, 19, and 20 (Force Entrants), filed a motion seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from retiring or suspending any officer who has not yet served 35 years of pensionable service or reached the age of 60. The motion also calls for a ban on suspending their salaries or postings until the hearing of the substantive suit.
In their suit, filed by counsel Edwin Okoro, the officers seek to quash the injustice against them and resolve whether the defendants can reopen the issue of their date of appointment, which was previously decided in two prior cases by the National Industrial Court.
The claimants also seek declarations affirming that their dates of first appointment, as stated in their appointment letters, are not subject to review by the defendants. They argue that members of the Cadet ASP (Force Entrants) of Courses 18, 19, and 20 who have not served 35 years of service or reached the age of 60 should be excluded from any decisions made by the 1st defendant during the extraordinary management board meeting on January 31, 2025, regarding the retirement of officers who meet the age or service requirements.
Additionally, they assert that their appointments, as per previous judgments of the National Industrial Court, should not be merged with their previous service and cannot be altered by any decision of the defendants. The claimants are also seeking an order to set aside the 1st defendant’s directive issued on January 31, 2025, regarding the retirement of members of Courses 18, 19, and 20. They are requesting a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from reviewing or altering the dates of appointment of Cadet ASPs of Courses 18, 19, and 20 or unlawfully retiring officers who have not reached the mandatory retirement age of 60.
