Police Commission reacts to dismissal of IGP Usman Baba by court

In response to the recent ruling by a federal high court in Anambra, the Police Service Commission (PSC) has reacted to the dismissal of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Usman Baba.

According to emerging reports, the PSC stated that the appointment and extension of tenure for the IGP is solely within the purview of the President, with the endorsement of the police council. They asserted that this decision is a prerogative reserved for the President and the council.

Following a report in which Solomon Arase, Chairman of the PSC, was quoted as stating that any potential extension of the IGP’s tenure by the President would grossly undermine the law, Ikechukwu Ani, Head of Press and Public Relations at the PSC, also refuted the claims and labelled the report as fictional and misleading.

Ani clarified that the PSC Chairman did not grant an interview to the reporter nor authorise anyone to speak on his behalf regarding this matter.

“Arase, a former Inspector General himself and the current Chairman of the PSC, is well aware of the proper channels of communication pertaining to his advice and contributions to the appointment of an IGP,” Ani stated.

“He has always maintained that the appointment of an IGP lies solely within the discretion of the President, with the endorsement of the police council, which is chaired by the President.”

Why IGP Usman Baba was dismissed by court

It should be noted that under Rule 229 of the police service rules, Baba is subject to mandatory retirement, which applies to all public service officers upon reaching the age of 60 or completing 35 years of service, whichever comes first.

In his case, the milestone of turning 60 was reached on March 1, which should have marked his stepping down from the position.

To this, on May 28, 2023 a federal high court in Anambra issued an order instructing Baba to cease identifying himself as Nigeria’s Inspector General of Police.

The presiding judge, Fatun Riman, declared that Baba’s continued tenure beyond the retirement age of 60 is both unlawful and unconstitutional.