By TOCHUKWU JIMO OBI

Nigeria’s worsening security crisis has forced a hard look at long-standing practices within the nation’s security architecture. Among the most troubling is the age-old tradition of compulsorily retiring senior officers in the Police and the military whenever a new head is appointed from among their juniors. While this convention may have been sustained by institutional hierarchy and culture, its consequences for national security have been profound and damaging.

For decades, the appointment of a junior officer to lead an agency has automatically triggered the exit of more senior officers. In the Nigeria Police Force and across the Armed Forces, such transitions have often resulted in the abrupt retirement of seasoned professionals whose only “offence” was being senior in rank to the newly appointed chief. This practice, though entrenched, has repeatedly deprived the country of invaluable expertise.

Over the years, Nigeria has witnessed the quiet departure of dedicated, highly trained, and battle-tested officers simply because a junior colleague was elevated. These are individuals who have served in complex operations, managed volatile regions, and accumulated decades of institutional knowledge. Their removal is not performance-based; it is procedural. In a security environment as fragile as Nigeria’s, that is a costly luxury.

National security must rank above internal traditions. Institutional customs should not supersede the broader interest of safeguarding lives and property. The rigid observance of hierarchy at the expense of competence weakens continuity, disrupts strategy, and undermines morale. Security agencies exist to protect the state, not to preserve customs that ultimately compromise effectiveness.

The financial implications are equally troubling. Huge sums of public money are invested in training senior officers both locally and internationally. Many attend specialised courses in counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering, cybercrime, and strategic command. To retire them abruptly in their early 50s, an age when they remain intellectually sharp and operationally capable, is to waste scarce national resources.

Nigeria’s insecurity challenges from insurgency to banditry and organised crime, require depth of experience. Officers in their early 50s still have much to contribute. Their leadership, mentorship, and field knowledge are critical in guiding younger officers and shaping effective responses. Forcing them out creates avoidable gaps at a time when the country can least afford institutional weakness.

The President undoubtedly retains the constitutional prerogative to appoint heads of security agencies. However, prudence demands that such appointments consider the broader implications. Selecting from the most senior ranks could minimise unnecessary retirements. Alternatively, the tradition of automatic mass retirement should be formally abolished. Retirement in such circumstances should be optional, not compulsory.

In this regard, commendation is due to Bola Tinubu for halting the mass retirement of senior police officers following the appointment of Tunde Disu as Acting Inspector General of Police. That decision reflects a pragmatic recognition that experience is indispensable. The Inspector General will require the support and institutional memory of senior colleagues to succeed in office.

Nigeria cannot continue to afford the premature and unnecessary exit of its most experienced security personnel. The directive to halt mass retirements should not be a one-off intervention but a policy direction going forward. If sustained, it could strengthen continuity, preserve expertise, and enhance the nation’s overall security posture. At a time when every asset counts, Nigeria must choose pragmatism over tradition.

•Tochukwu Jimo Obi writes from Obosi, Anambra State.

Update news