1 month ago
8
The recent amendment to the Nigeria Police Act 2020 by the National Assembly, which effectively extends the tenure of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), has sparked controversy and dissent within the police force.
Senior officers have voiced their opposition, arguing that the changes undermine loyalty and hard work, especially given the challenges of public perception and hostility.
Naija News earlier reported that the National Assembly quickly passed an amendment to the Nigeria Police Act 2020, granting the IGP a fixed four-year tenure, irrespective of age or length of service.
This change allows the current IGP to remain in office for the full term specified in their appointment letter, in line with Section 7 (6) of the 2020 Act, which states: “The person appointed to the office of the Inspector-General of Police shall hold office for four years.”
However, this amendment also affects Section 18 of the original act by introducing a new subsection (8A), which states that any person appointed as IGP will remain in office until the end of their stipulated term, regardless of the retirement rules which typically require police officers to retire after 35 years of service or upon reaching 60 years of age, whichever comes first.
Inspector General of Police Kayode Egbetokun, who was a key official under President Bola Tinubu during his tenure as governor of Lagos State, was appointed as IGP in June 2023. He is set to turn 60 on September 4, 2024.
This amendment is perceived by many as being tailor-made to extend Egbetokun’s tenure, which has led to frustration among senior officers who see themselves as potential candidates for the IGP position.
One senior officer, speaking anonymously to THE WHISTLER, criticized the amendment, stating that favoritism at the highest levels of the police force sets a bad precedent and undermines confidence in the system.
He said, “Even though not everyone can be an IG, it’s wrong. It will crash the morale.”
The officer said it’s alarming that “nepotism is creeping into a once admired force. It’s getting worse. How would the rank and file think when at the top nepotism and favouritism is being given utmost consideration?”
“I think the only fair thing is if the occupant of that office is not the first beneficiary otherwise it will spell doom for the future of the force,” he warned.
Another officer described the process as hasty and flawed, saying, “The speed with which this amendment was passed raises serious concerns. It appears there are other motivations at play.”
Retired senior police officials have also expressed concern, emphasizing that even during periods of inadequate funding, efforts were made to minimize favoritism.
They worry that the focus on who benefits from such legislative changes will lead to demoralization, which is counterproductive to the force’s effectiveness.
A retired senior police officer who said he doesn’t want to invite the wrath of the powers that be opined that “in our days, even though we were underfunded, we tried not to give prominence to favouritism and nepotism. What everyone would be looking at is who is the president and who’s the IG and who is the first beneficiary of this law.”
“I don’t think it’s a good thing, it doesn’t look well. Tongues would wag, people would be demoralised and that’s the last thing you need in the already troubled force,” he said.
English (US) ·