BREAKING: Court Stops IGP, PSC From Reinstating Police Academy Courses 18, 19, 20

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, NICN, Abuja Division, has granted an interim order of injunction restraining the Inspector-General of Police, the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission from implementing the reinstatement of members of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants) of the Nigeria Police Academy, Kano.

The order was granted pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit challenging the legality of the reinstatement on grounds of statutory retirement.

The suit, marked NICN/KN/51/2026, was instituted by Advocacy for Human Rights and Cultural Values Development Initiatives as Claimant/Applicant against the Inspector-General of Police as 1st Defendant, The Nigeria Police Force as 2nd Defendant, Attorney-General of the Federation as 3rd Defendant, Head of Service of the Federation as 4th Defendant, Police Service Commission as 5th Defendant and All Members/Officers of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants) of the Nigeria Police Academy as 6th Defendant.

In a Certified True Copy of the ruling sighted by our correspondent, the Court sat on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, before Honourable Justice Buhari Sani.

The proceedings, according to the Applicant, are not an attempt to review or overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Rather, they seek judicial interpretation and determination of the legal consequences of existing judgments and the applicable statutory provisions governing service, retirement and entitlement of the affected officers.

The Applicant, through its counsel Hamza N. Dantani, Esq., with Zakari Mubashir, Esq. holding his brief, approached the Court following steps taken by the police authorities to implement the decision to reinstate the affected officers, including a directive requiring them to report for a six-month induction course.

In the affidavit evidence, the Applicant averred that the Police Service Commission at its meeting held on January 31, 2025, had approved the immediate retirement of police officers who had spent more than 35 years in service or had attained 60 years of age, a decision that affected Cadet ASP Courses 18, 19 and 20.

The Applicant averred further that a decision has now been made to reinstate the officers notwithstanding that they have attained the applicable retirement threshold. The Applicant referenced a letter from the Inspector-General of Police dated 31st July 2026 (Exhibit C) directing the affected officers to report for a six-month induction course scheduled to commence on 17/08/2026.

The Applicant’s case is that the proposed implementation raises substantial questions of law requiring judicial determination, particularly concerning the interpretation of previous judgments on the date of first appointment of the affected Force Entrants and the application of statutory provisions on retirement.

Central to the dispute is Section 18(8) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, which provides that every police officer shall, upon recruitment or appointment, serve for 35 years or until attaining 60 years of age, whichever occurs earlier. The provision is to be read alongside Rule 020908(i) and (ii) of the Public Service Rules, 2021, which provides for compulsory retirement upon attaining 60 years or completing 35 years of pensionable service.

The Applicant contends that these provisions require proper interpretation in determining whether officers who have completed the applicable period or attained the statutory age can lawfully remain in service or continue to receive salaries from public funds.

The proceedings also raise questions concerning the interaction between the Nigeria Police Act, the Public Service Rules, the Pension Reform Act, 2014, and the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The Applicant further contends that the Court must determine the legal implications of any attempt to treat the previous service of the affected officers as part of their present pensionable service, particularly where previous judgments concerning their dates of first appointment have already been implemented.

COURT’S DECISION

In his ruling on the Motion Ex Parte dated and filed on 18th September 2026, Justice Sani adopted the sole issue of whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

The Court considered the 29-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Sambo Jibril Jada, the 9-paragraph Affidavit of Urgency, Exhibits A, B and C, and the Written Address.

The Court held that the law regarding interim injunction is to preserve the status quo until a named date or until a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction can be heard, citing KOTOYE V. C.B.N. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, ADELEKE V. LAWAL (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1393) 1, and OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL V. A.-G., FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325.

On Real Urgency, the Court held that the ongoing implementation evidenced by the IGP’s directive for induction constitutes a situation of real urgency and that the subject matter is under imminent threat of being altered.

On Serious Question to be Tried, the Court held that the substantive suit raises serious questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Nigeria Police Act 2020 and Public Service Rules 2021 concerning mandatory retirement and the legality of the purported reinstatement.

On Balance of Convenience, the Court held that the balance tilts in favour of the Applicant, noting that if the officers are reinstated, the res of the suit would be destroyed and any judgment would be rendered academic and a mere brutum fulmen.

On Irreparable Damage, the Court held that proceeding with reinstatement would fundamentally alter the employment status of the officers and the structure of the Nigeria Police Force.

On Undertaking as to Damages, the Court noted the Applicant’s undertaking in paragraph 27 of its affidavit that it is “ready and willing to abide by any undertaking as to damages or other conditions which this Honourable Court may impose.”

Consequently, the Court granted the application.

ORDERS OF COURT

1. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION is hereby granted restraining the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants, whether by themselves, their officers, servants, agents, privies or otherwise howsoever, from implementing, giving effect to or enforcing the decision approving the reinstatement of the CADET A.S.P COURSES 18, 19, and 20 Graduates of The Nigerian Police Academy, Kano, into the Nigeria Police Force pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

2. AN ORDER is hereby made directing the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants to maintain the status quo existing immediately before the decision to reinstate the CADET A.S.P COURSES 18, 19, and 20 Graduates.

3. The Applicant shall serve this ruling together with the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction and Originating Summons within 3 days from today.

4. The case is adjourned to 30th day of September, 2026 for the hearing of the Motion on Notice.

The significance of the order is that the Court is not, at this stage, finally determining whether the affected officers are entitled to remain in service. Rather, the order preserves the existing position pending determination of the substantive legal questions.

The earlier background to the dispute includes Suit No. NICN/ABJ/28/2025, where the NICN considered previous judgments in NICN/ABJ/345/2019 and NICN/ABJ/353/2019 concerning dates of first appointment of the affected Cadet Officers, and held that the PSC could not reopen or alter dates already determined. That matter subsequently went to the Court of Appeal, which in April 2026 upheld the reinstatement decision.

The present suit seeks interpretation of those judgments alongside Section 18(8) of the Police Act, Rule 020908 of the Public Service Rules, the Pension Reform Act and the Constitution, particularly on whether an officer who has attained 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service can lawfully continue in active service and receive salary from public funds.

Until the Originating Summons is finally determined, the interim order remains in force to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.

Find the ruling Document below;