The National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja has postponed its ruling on the lawsuit filed by Course 18, 19, and 20 (force entrants) of the Police Academy, who are challenging their alleged forced retirement from the Nigeria Police Force by the Police Service Commission (PSC), Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, and the Force Secretary.
The court had originally scheduled a ruling for Tuesday, but when the case was called, Justice R. B. Haastrup, the trial judge, announced that the ruling was not yet ready. The judge then adjourned the ruling to March 17 and ordered that hearing notices be served to the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the case.
Counsel for the claimants, Goddy Uche (SAN), informed the court that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who were absent from the proceedings, had allegedly reduced the rank of some of the claimants and retired them from service while the case was still ongoing. Although the defendants were neither present nor represented in court, the judge noted that during the last hearing, the defendants had informed the court that they would be absent for the ruling due to other matters outside the jurisdiction, which the court had permitted.
The officers—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—had sued the PSC, IGP, and the Force Secretary, seeking to challenge their unlawful retirement from the Force before reaching the mandatory retirement age or serving the required 35 years of service. They are also seeking the non-implementation of a previous court judgment.
The claimants, who are suing on behalf of all members of Course 18, 19, and 20 (force entrants) of the Police Academy, are requesting an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from retiring or suspending any officer who has not served 35 years of pensionable service or reached the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. They also want the court to restrain the defendants from suspending their salaries or postings.
The aggrieved officers are challenging the decision, asking the court to determine whether the date of their first appointment as cadet officers should be subject to review and whether the defendants are barred from reopening the issue. They also seek declarations that their dates of first appointment are not subject to review and that they are excluded from decisions regarding retirement for those who have served 35 years or reached the age of 60, as per previous judgments.
Furthermore, the claimants are seeking an order to set aside the January 31, 2025, directive from the first defendant regarding the retirement of officers from Courses 18, 19, and 20. They are also requesting perpetual injunctions to prevent any unlawful review of their appointment dates or premature retirement of officers who have not reached the required retirement age.
