The National Industrial Court in Abuja has scheduled a ruling for March 17 on a lawsuit filed by over 400 police officers who claim they were unlawfully forcefully retired from the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). The case, identified as NICN/ABJ/28/2025, involves officers from Courses 18, 19, and 20 of the Police Academy. Represented by eight senior officers, including ACP Chinedu Emengaha and CSP Sylvester Ebosele, they argue that their retirements were not conducted in accordance with legal procedures and that they had not reached the required retirement age.
The defendants in the case include the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Inspector General of Police (IGP), and the Force Secretary of the Nigeria Police. During the latest court proceedings, the Claimants’ attorney, Chief Goddy Uche, SAN, expressed concern that the police authorities had not only demoted some Claimants but also retired them while the suit was still pending. He noted that the IGP and Force Secretary did not provide legal representation for the hearing.
Justice R. B. Haastrup informed the Claimants that the ruling originally expected that day was not ready and instructed both parties to return for the next scheduled date. The Claimants are seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the retirement or suspension of any officers who have not yet completed 35 years of service or reached the mandatory retirement age of 60 until their case is resolved.
The Claimants are seeking a court order to prevent the defendants from suspending the salaries or postings of officers from Courses 18, 19, and 20 of the Police Academy. They specifically request the court to determine several key issues, including whether previous rulings by the National Industrial Court (NICN), delivered by Justice O. Oyewunmi, which recognized their start dates of service, prevent the defendants from re-evaluating these dates.
They argue that members of the Cadet ASPs from these courses who have not yet served 35 years or reached the age of 60 should be excluded from the defendants’ decisions regarding retirement, as per the earlier judgments. Additionally, they request declarations stating that their appointments should not be treated as part of prior service, and that the defendants cannot overturn the NICN rulings already put into action since July 29, 2021.
Furthermore, the Claimants are asking for the court to nullify a directive issued by the 1st defendant affecting these courses and to issue a perpetual injunction against the defendants, preventing any unlawful review of their appointment dates or retirement of any members who have not yet met the mandatory age requirement.