The National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja has fixed March 17 to deliver a ruling in the suit filed by Courses 18, 19, and 20 (Force Entrants) of the Police Academy on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs are challenging their forced retirement from the Nigeria Police Force.
The plaintiffs, who sued the Police Service Commission, the Inspector General of Police, and the Force Secretary as the 1st to 3rd defendants, filed the suit both individually and on behalf of all members of Courses 18, 19, and 20 of the Police Academy.
The officers involved include 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.
In their motion on notice, marked NICN/ABJ/28/2025, the plaintiffs sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from retiring or suspending any officers from these courses who are yet to serve 35 years of pensionable service or reach the mandatory retirement age of 60 years, pending the hearing and determination of their substantive suit.
They also requested an order restraining the defendants from suspending the salaries or altering the postings of any officers from Courses 18, 19, and 20 of the Police Academy.
The suit, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their counsel, Edwin Okoro, asked the court to address the alleged injustice and determine:
Whether, considering the judgments of the National Industrial Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice O. Oyewunmi in suit numbers NICN/ABJ./345/2019 (ACP Chinedu Emengaha & Ors vs. PSC & 2 Ors) and NICN/ABJ./353/2019 (CSP Sunday Okuguni & Ors vs. PSC & 2 Ors), which resolved the issue of the date of appointment of Cadet Officers (Force Entrants) as the date of their first appointment, and having been implemented by the defendants since July 29, 2021, the defendants are estopped from reopening the issue of the date of first appointment.”
The claimants are also seeking the following declarations and orders, “A declaration that the date of the first appointment into service of the claimants, as contained in their respective appointment letters, is not subject to review by the defendants.
A declaration that members of Cadet ASP (Force Entrants) of Courses 18, 19, and 20 who are yet to serve 35 years of pensionable service or attain the age of 60 are excluded from the decision of the 1st defendant during its extraordinary meeting held on January 31, 2025, approving the immediate retirement of officers who have spent 35 years in service or are above 60 years of age.
A declaration that the defendants cannot overturn the valid and subsisting judgments of the National Industrial Court delivered by Justice O. Oyewunmi, already implemented since July 29, 2021.
An order setting aside the 1st defendant’s directive to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as contained in the press release of January 31, 2025, concerning Courses 18, 19, and 20 (Force Entrants).
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from unlawfully reviewing the dates of appointment of Cadet ASPs of Force Entrants from Courses 18, 19, and 20, already settled by the court.
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from unlawfully retiring any member of Cadet ASPs from Courses 18, 19, and 20 who has not attained the mandatory retirement age of 60 years”.
At the last sitting, the court adjourned for March 11 to deliver a ruling in the suit. However, when the matter was called, the presiding judge, Justice R. B. Haastrup, disclosed that the ruling was not ready and adjourned the case to March 17. The judge also ordered that hearing notices be served on the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Chief Goddy Uche (SAN), representing the claimants, informed the court that the 2nd and 3rd defendants had allegedly reduced the ranks of some of the claimants and retired them from service while the case was still pending in court.
Although the 2nd and 3rd defendants were absent from the court and unrepresented, the judge noted that during the last proceedings, the defendants had informed the court that they would not be available for the ruling due to another matter outside the court’s jurisdiction, which the court permitted
