Judiciary
Police Academy Courses 18, 19 and 20: NICN Grants Interim Order Pending Determination of Suit on Retirement and Reinstatement
ABUJA — The legal controversy surrounding members of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants) of the Nigeria Police Academy, Kano, has taken a fresh turn at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja, with the Court granting an interim injunction pending the hearing and final determination of the Originating Summons challenging the implementation of their proposed reinstatement.
The proceedings 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 the service, retirement and entitlement of the affected police officers.
The case was instituted by Advocacy for Human Rights and Cultural Values Development Initiatives in Suit No. NICN/KN/51/2026, before Honourable Justice Buhari Sani.
The Applicant approached the Court following steps taken by the relevant police authorities towards implementing the decision to reinstate members of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants), including a directive requiring the affected officers to report for a six-month induction course.
The Applicant’s case is that the proposed implementation raises substantial questions of law requiring judicial determination, particularly concerning the interpretation of the previous judgments on the date of first appointment of the affected Force Entrants and the application of the statutory provisions governing the duration of service and retirement of police officers.
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 in the Nigeria Police Force for 35 years or until attaining 60 years of age, whichever occurs earlier. The provision has also been considered by the National Industrial Court alongside Rule 020908(i) and (ii) of the Public Service Rules, which provides for compulsory retirement upon attaining 60 years of age or completing 35 years of pensionable service, whichever occurs earlier. (nicnadr.gov.ng)
The Applicant contends that these provisions require proper interpretation in determining whether officers who have either completed the applicable period of service or attained the statutory retirement age can lawfully remain in service or continue to receive salaries and other emoluments from public funds.
The proceedings also raise questions concerning the interaction between the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, the Public Service Rules, the Pension Reform Act, 2014, and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly in relation to retirement, pensionable service and the payment of public funds to officers who may have reached the applicable statutory retirement threshold.
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 the previous judgments concerning their dates of first appointment have already been implemented.
The need for judicial clarification became more pronounced because the reinstatement process was already being put into effect before the substantive questions raised in the Originating Summons had been finally determined.
In a ruling delivered on September 22, 2026, Justice Buhari Sani considered the application, the affidavit evidence and the written address filed on behalf of the Applicant by its counsel, Hamza N. Dantani, Esq.
The Court found that the substantive proceedings raised serious questions requiring determination, including the interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Nigeria Police Act and Public Service Rules and the legal consequences of the existing judgments concerning the affected officers.
The Court also considered the fact that the reinstatement process was already underway and that the affected officers had reportedly been directed to commence a six-month induction programme.
Against that background, the Court granted an interim injunction pending the hearing and final determination of the Originating Summons, thereby preserving the subject matter of the proceedings while the substantive legal questions remain before the Court.
The order restrains the Inspector-General of Police, the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission, including their officers, servants, agents and privies, from implementing, giving effect to or enforcing the decision approving the reinstatement of the affected members of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants) pending the determination of the substantive proceedings.
The Court also directed the parties to maintain the status quo that existed immediately before the decision to reinstate the affected officers.
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 so that the Court can first determine the substantive legal questions raised before it.
Those questions include the proper interpretation of Section 18(8) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, Rule 020908(i) and (ii) of the Public Service Rules, the relevant provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and other applicable regulations governing the Nigeria Police Force.
The proceedings also raise the broader question of whether an officer who has already attained the applicable statutory retirement threshold of 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever occurs earlier, can lawfully continue in active service and receive salary and other emoluments from public funds.
The issue of the date of first appointment is particularly significant in the dispute involving the Force Entrants.
In an earlier judgment delivered by the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/28/2025, involving members of Courses 18, 19 and 20, the Court considered the previous judgments in NICN/ABJ/345/2019 and NICN/ABJ/353/2019 concerning the dates of first appointment of the affected Cadet Officers.
The Court held, among other things, that the Police Service Commission could not reopen or alter the dates of first appointment already determined by the earlier judgments. It also set aside the Commission’s January 31, 2025 directive insofar as it affected the members of Courses 18, 19 and 20 (Force Entrants). (nicnadr.gov.ng)
The earlier judgment further declared that members of the affected courses who had neither completed 35 years of pensionable service nor attained 60 years of age were excluded from the retirement decision then under consideration. (nicnadr.gov.ng)
The matter subsequently went before the Court of Appeal. Reports of the appellate decision indicate that the Court of Appeal in April 2026 upheld the earlier decision of the National Industrial Court concerning the reinstatement of the affected officers. (Businessday NG)
The present proceedings therefore arise against that background.
The Applicant maintains that it is not asking the National Industrial Court to sit on appeal over the Court of Appeal or to review the appellate judgment. Rather, the Originating Summons seeks a determination of the legal interpretation, application and consequences of the existing judicial decisions and statutory provisions in the circumstances of the affected officers.
The Court has consequently preserved the status quo pending the hearing and final determination of the Originating Summons.
The matter has been adjourned until September 30, 2026, for further proceedings.
The substantive determination is expected to clarify the legal relationship between the existing judgments concerning the affected Force Entrants, their dates of first appointment, the statutory retirement framework and the implementation of the decision to reinstate them.
Until the Originating Summons is finally determined, the interim order remains directed at preserving the subject matter of the litigation and preventing steps that could potentially render the substantive proceedings nugatory.