Lawyer sues IGP for staying in office despite retirement age

Human rights lawyer, Festus Ogun, has called on the court to determine the legality of the continuity of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Usman Alkali Baba, in office, having reached retirement age.

The suit was brought pursuant to Sections 1, 5(1), 6(6), 215(1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, (as amended), Sections 3(1), 7(3), 18(8) and 136 of The Police Act, 2020, order 3 rules 6 – 9 of The Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Defendants in the suit are the IGP, Baba; President of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigerian Police Council as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.

The plaintiff, in the suit before the Federal High Court, Abeokuta, wants the court to determine whether in light of the aforesaid constitutional and statutory provisions, the 1st defendant ought to have vacated his office as the IGP upon reaching the statutory retirement age.

The plaintiff, further in the originating summons dated April 26, 2023, prayed the court for a declaration that the 1st defendant is a retired member of the Nigeria Police Force.

He also wants the court to declare that the 1st defendant is not qualified and is ineligible to continue functioning in office as the Inspector General of Police, the 1st defendant being a retired member of the Nigeria Police Force.

“A declaration of the court that the 1st defendant’s continuous occupation and functioning in office as Inspector General of Police after reaching or clocking the statutory retirement age is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and wrongful.

“A declaration of the court that the 1st defendant cannot in non-compliance with the Constitution and the Police Act continue to function in office as the Inspector General of Police having clocked the statutory retirement age,” the plaintiff prayed.

The plaintiff is also seeking a mandatory order, directing and compelling the 1st defendant to vacate the office of the IGP immediately and forthwith and to refund to the Federal Government every entitlement, salary and remuneration received during the period within which the 1st defendant illegally occupied office as the IGP from the date of his retirement.

Also, the defendant is seeking a perpetual injunction or order restraining the 1st defendant, including his privies or agents, from parading himself as the IGP and from performing functions, exercising powers and duties attached to the office of the IGP.

“A mandatory order of the court, directing and compelling the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to immediately appoint an acting IGP,” he prayed. Furthermore, the plaintiff wants, amongst others, the determination of the court whether upon a proper construction of Section 215(1) A of the 1999 Constitution, and Sections 7(3) and 18(8) of the Police Act, 2020, the 1st defendant can validly continue occupying and functioning in office as the IGP having clocked the statutory retirement age.

“Whether upon a joint consideration of Section 215(1) A of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 7(3) and 18(8) of the Police Act, 2020, the 1st defendant can validly and legally be regarded as the IGP having clocked the retirement age prescribed by law,” he asked.