In the last couple of months, particularly after the confirmation of the tenure of the present Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, there has been so many disparaging comments against the appointor, who is the President of Nigeria, as well as the beneficiary of the confirmation. I have chosen to use the phrase confirmation in line with the Police Act, as opposed to the ignorantly peddled ‘extension of tenure’. To be candid, I am certainly not shocked that we have the reactions generated in the public space, as expectedly, several other officers have positioned themselves to succeed the present Inspector General of Police when the initial retirement period was approaching. Undoubtedly, this is a legitimate ambition of the concerned officers. Every diligent officer expects one day to possibly occupy such office.

I therefore personally will not grudge those that have signified such intention and ambition, either overtly or covertly. However, my point of departure will be that such ambition must not be permitted to be inordinate, so as to result in the peddling of injurious misinformation around. Those concerned ought to know that divinely, it is God who crowns a being and is Him that can overthrow when He so desires. No matter the degree of disparagement and venom in the nature of pull-him-down syndrome, it is only if God wishes that such will happen. Even where it happens, the affected person, purportedly a victim of divine decision, must be grateful to God as there is always a reason for such. It might not be apparent to man, but in the sight of God, there is always justification for every act and event.

Where the affected person therefore opts to struggle with God or challenges God’s decision, he must expect the consequence. So, my admonition to those who find themselves in any of those positions, is to simply appreciate God’s decision and move on, otherwise, they might end up badly in the process of challenging such divine decision. Now to the crux of our discourse, is it true that the continuous stay in office of the Inspector General of police is illegal as being contended in some quarters?

The commencement point of this conversation must as of necessity be from the Police Act, 2024, as amended. This is the Act/law that governs the entire spectrum of the police force, including the appointment and tenure of the Inspector General of Police. Although, prior to the amendment of the Act, the rule is that a public servant retires at the age of sixty years or thirty-five years in service, whichever is earlier. What the Act has, however, now done is to create a statutory tenure for the office of the Inspector General of Police, just like that of parastatals. Now, whoever is appointed under the amended Act will have the benefit of staying in office for the period of four years. I read a recent intervention on the issue suggestive of the applicability of the Civil Service Rules to the tenure of the Inspector General of Police, and I was alarmed as this emanated from the desk of one of my respected colleagues. The fact is that the amended Police Act clearly stipulates that the Act applies, ‘notwithstanding’ whatever is contained in the Civil Service Rules. This is intentional and purposeful.

That is, the draftsmen are not in doubt as to the mission they intend achieving by the amendment. What this connotes is that the amended provision of Section 7(6) of the Act overrides the other imports of the Civil Service Rules. Even in the interpretation of statutes, it is elementary that the later statutes will be taken to have taken cognisance of the earlier Acts/provisions. The point I am making, therefore, is that by the amended Police Act, the sixty years rule, or thirty five year’s in service rule is no longer automatically applicable to the occupier of the office of the Inspector General of Police in Nigeria. The further import of the provision is that the occurrence is not a case of extension of tenure, as misconceived, but the serving of a statutory tenure.

The four-year tenure commences from the date of appointment of whichever officer is appointed. This much was captured by the legal advisory of the Chief Law Officer of the country, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), already in the public space. It is also instructive to note that the said tenure was equally confirmed by the Police Council, the organ charged with the ratification of the tenure in line with the Police Act. What else is then required in terms of validation of the tenure of the Inspector General of Police?

There is obviously no irregularity, much less illegality. To this extent, I submit that there is no cause for alarm in the continuous stay of the occupier, Kayode Egbetokun, in office. Essentially, the rationale behind the amendment is to ensure some degree of stability in the leadership of the Police Force. A situation where there is ever policy inconsistency in the Force due to incessant leadership changes is condemnable and unhealthy for the country. There is hardly a successor to that office that has a reasonable period to formulate or implement any meaningful and impactful policy due to the brevity of time. The net effect of this is simply that there is hardly any continuity in the programmes and policies in the office. A sensitive office that involves the security of lives and properties does not deserve, in my view, such cursory treatment of rendering the occupancy of the office of Inspector General of Police routine.

This approach shows no seriousness on the part of the leadership of the country. It is in this connection that I salute the wisdom of the legislators in appropriately amending the Police Act to that effect and commending the courage of the President in giving effect to the provision. Nothing can be more reassuring of a brighter future for the police, as well as the security of the country than this.

As I remarked earlier, chief executives of parastatals have been privileged over time to be beneficiaries of the statutory tenures. In terms of relativity, I am not too sure that the job descriptions of most of the chief executives of government parastatals and other extra-ministerial bodies are as sensitive as that of the Inspector General of Police. Having said that, I have also listened to the questions or queries as to why the previous occupants of the office were not accorded the same privilege. The response is simple, and it is that the amendment of the Police Act was not in place as at that time. An Act does not operate retrospectively, except expressly enacted to so be.

Certainly, such development will always start with a person, and if the present occupier is the fortunate being under whom a beneficial alteration of the law is made, we should allow it to be. My strong view is that the continuous agitation and sulking over this is unnecessary and unwarranted.

This, alongside the filing of suits in courts, is unhelpful as it is largely distractive of the occupier. I believe that we need to create the needed conducive atmosphere for the occupier to concentrate on his mandate and provide security for us all. All subversive steps in the public are not in the national and our collective interest. We cannot afford to endanger all of us. The truth is that we all have been condemning continuously the impact of the Nigerian police in the country but the reality is that we cannot continue to do the same thing in the same way and expect any change. Let us the give the latest innovation a chance and see how it will perform. As the Yorubas will say, “danwo ni o bi iya okere.“ It is a matter of a trial will convince you. Beyond this opinion, I strongly advocate the applicability of the same approach to other occupiers of the security offices in the country. There is a need for them all to enjoy reasonable period to impact the system. Where this is not so extended to such other comparable offices in order to guarantee security of tenure for them, and the country/system is unfortunate to have a corrupt person at the helms of the outfit, the consequence is that such occupier busies himself with feasting on the public treasury than engendering any positive change. This certainly will be catastrophic.

The extant amendment In my view also will bridge the unfettered discretion of the appointor to such offices, as dangling of carrots of extension, will be minimally invasive. The politicisation culture will be reduced as, once appointed, the law guarantees your four-year stay, except some gross misconducts are committed. This is apart from creating peace of mind and focus for the occupiers of such offices. I had in the past canvassed argument along this line while looking at the office of the Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, whose fortune depends on the mood, whims and caprices of the President. A situation where a chief executive who is performing to the admiration of the people is suddenly removed and made to suffer the ignominy of sudden departure from office, does not encourage other well-meaning people to want to serve in the offices. Mention one EFCC Chairman who has ever retired in celebrations. The office is fast becoming like the legendary fearsome office of the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Oyo, whose historical accounts have proven to always end in disaster as no valiant warrior occupying the office has ever died in peace.

Whether this is a curse or part of the fate of the office is difficult to understand. But why should our valiant defender die in ignominy at a time that the ovation is probably the loudest. Iku ogun nii pa akikanju… It is death in war that ends the valiant. I believe the disgrace that has ended the tenure of the occupants of the office of the EFCC Chairman justifies why such appointments should be clothed with the security of tenure. It has been achieved with respect to the office of the Inspector General of Police. It has to be extended to other security chiefs. In sum, this is my take on the unnecessary controversy trailing the confirmation of the tenure of the Inspector General of Police.

•Muiz Banire is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). (Daily Trust)