Latest Headlines
IGP Egbetokun’s Tenure Extension and the Controversy of ‘Legitimacy’ Despite Police Act Amendment

The continued stay of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun in office has ignited controversy over the legal interpretation of his tenure. While the Police Act mandates retirement at 60 or after 35 years of service, another section guarantees a four-year term for the IGP, leading to conflicting legal positions. Chiemelie Ezeobi writes that while the recent amendment to the Police Act granting the IGP a full term regardless of age, should have doused the matter, it has only served to deepen the debate with his critics bent on questioning the legitimacy of Egbetokun’s continued service, arguing that it violates existing laws and undermines police reforms
The continued stay of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun despite attaining the age of 60 last September, has recently sparked debates over conflicting provisions in the Police Act regarding retirement age and tenure duration.
While the law mandates police officers to retire at 60 years or after 35 years of service, another section guarantees a four-year term for the IGP. While the recent amendment to the Police Act should have put the matter to rest, many are however concerned over its implications for police leadership and institutional stagnation.
Legal Framework
What does the law say? According to the Police Act 2020 Section 18(8), it stipulates that every police officer shall serve for a period of 35 years or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever comes first, while Section 7(6): Specifies that the person appointed to the office of the Inspector-General of Police shall hold office for four years.
Based on this, it was expected that IGP Egbetokun, who was born on September 4, 1964, and had reached the age of 60 on September 4, 2024, which, under Section 18(8), would typically mandate his retirement.
Legislative Amendment
However, Section 7(6) provides for a four-year tenure for the IGP, creating a legal ambiguity between the general retirement provisions and the specific tenure of the IGP. It was to address this inconsistency that the National Assembly passed the Police Act (Amendment) Bill 2024.
This amendment introduces a new subsection, 18(8A), which states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (8) of this section, any person appointed to the office of Inspector-General of Police shall remain in office until the end of the term stipulated in the letter of appointment in line with the provisions of Section 7(6) of this Act.”
This amendment clarifies that the IGP is entitled to a four-year tenure, regardless of the general retirement age or years of service limitations. Based on this, it’s is expected that IGP Egbetokun is legally permitted to continue serving until 2027, completing his four-year term as outlined in his appointment letter.
Stirring the Hornet’s Nest
Expectedly, the extension of IGP Egbetokun’s tenure elicited mixed reactions. While some stakeholders within the security sector lauded the extension, others expressed concerns that extending the IGP’s tenure beyond the traditional retirement age could lead to stagnation within the police force and potentially impact internal security dynamics. They further argued that regular leadership changes are essential for maintaining an effective security architecture.
To the latter, the NPF has clarified that the approval of the IGP’s four-year tenure is not an extension but a proper application of the law governing the office of the IGP and therefore aligns with the provisions of the amended Police Act.
Although there were underground discontent in the force over the extension, it was Omoyele Sowore, a human rights activist and former presidential candidate, who however stirred the hornet’s nest and initiated public controversy by challenging the legality of IGP Egbetokun’s extended tenure.
Sowore contended that Egbetokun’s continued service beyond the mandatory retirement age of 60 and after completing 35 years in service was unlawful. He labeled Egbetokun as an “illegal IGP” in public statements and social media posts. This dispute has led to legal actions, with Sowore facing charges for allegedly using his social media platform to refer to Egbetokun as an “illegal IGP.”
Police React
In response, the Nigeria Police Force refuted Sowore’s claims, asserting that IGP Egbetokun’s appointment and tenure are legally sound. In a press release issued by the Force Spokesperson, ACP Muyiwa Adejobi, he cited the Police Act, 2020 (as amended), which stipulates a four-year term for the IGP, regardless of age or years of service. The police emphasised that Egbetokun’s appointment was duly ratified by the Police Council and confirmed by the Presidency, validating his tenure from October 31, 2023, to October 31, 2027.
AGF’s Clarification
To douse the controversy, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), also affirmed the legality of Egbetokun’s continued stay in office, referencing the amended Police Act, which allows the IGP to serve a full four-year term irrespective of the retirement age.
In his clarification he said: “The continuous stay in office of the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, is legal and lawful. The appointment of Egbetokun which took effect from 31st day of October, 2023 would have come to an end on his attainment of 60 years of age on 4th day of September, 2024.
“However, before his retirement age, the Police Act was amended to allow the occupant of the office to remain and complete the original four year term granted under Section 7 (6) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that he has attained the age of 60 years.
“This has, therefore, statutorily extended the tenure of office of Egbetokun to and including 31st day of October, 2027 in order to complete the four year tenure granted to him.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Egbetokun’s continous stay in office is in line with the provisions of the Police Act amended in 2024 which allow the occupant of the office to enjoy a term of four years effective from the date of his appointment as IGP, in this case, 31st day of October 2023. This advisory is necessary for the guidance of the general public.”
Challenging the Legality of the Tenure Extension
Of course the clarification by the AGF instead of dousing the situation only served to through up more opposition and questions. Among those who countered the AGF’s position was the Secretary of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP), Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, who an open letter to the AGF challenged the legality of the tenure extension.
According to him, the extension, which was based on the amended Police Act 2024, is unconstitutional because the IGP’s office is a creation of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, and any changes to its tenure must be made through a constitutional amendment rather than an ordinary Act of the National Assembly.
In his four arguments, he first argued that the IGP’s office is governed by the Constitution and not the Police Act. According to him, Sections 214, 215, and 216 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as altered) establish the office of the IGP and govern appointments, tenure, and control of the Nigeria Police Force, therefore any alteration to the IGP’s tenure must come through a formal constitutional amendment, not an amendment to the Police Act.
He quoted Section 215(1) of the 1999 Constitution which states that “There shall be – (a) an Inspector-General of Police who, subject to section 216(2) of this Constitution shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Nigeria Police Force.”
Thus, he said since the Police Act is subordinate to the Constitution, any provision in the 2024 amendment that contradicts the Constitution is null and void under Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which states: “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
In his second argument, he posited that the retirement age for the IGP cannot be extended without amending the constitution. Dr. Jaja referenced the Fifth Alteration Act No. 37 of June 8, 2023, where the Constitution was amended to adjust the retirement age for judicial officers. He therefore argued that since the IGP’s office is also created by the Constitution, the same legal process—constitutional amendment—must be followed to change the retirement age or tenure of the IGP.
Thirdly, on highlighted the Public Service Rules 2021 (as amended), under which the compulsory retirement age for public servants, including police officers, is 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever comes first. He noted that since the Police Act 2020 classified police officers as public servants, the IGP is therefore bound by the same retirement rules.
He went further to support his claim with the case law, citing Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 and Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40, where the courts affirmed that public service appointments derive authority from the Constitution and cannot be arbitrarily altered by ordinary legislation.
Finally, he referenced the Supreme Court’s Position on Constitutional Supremacy in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1982) NCLR 1, which reaffirmed that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid. By this principle, he said the provision in the Police (Amendment) Act 2024 extending the IGP’s tenure beyond 60 years is unconstitutional.
While charging the AGF to reconsider his stance, he said if they insist on defending the Police Act’s tenure extension, then ALDRAP will file a lawsuit at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria to seek a judicial ruling on the matter. This is just as he reiterated that without a constitutional amendment, the IGP must retire upon reaching 60 years of age, in accordance with the Constitution and established public service rules.
Retirement of Senior Officers Inflame Situation
Instead of dousing the thorny issue, the approval by the Police Service Commission (PSC) for the immediate retirement of senior police officers who are either over 60 years old or have completed 35 years of service, has only served to draw public ire against the IGP, who they alleged was removing likely successors.
In a statement by Ikechukwu Ani, head of Press and Public Relations, he said the decision to retire those senior officers was made during the PSC’s first extraordinary meeting on Friday.
One of those that criticised the move was human rights activist, Chidi Odinkalu. In a tweet he wrote, “So here you have it…. This is why @YeleSowore called this IGP of @PoliceNG “illegal”. Facts are stubborn. Now the #PSC has retired all officer over 60. That will be enforced by an IGP who is over 60. Folks should care about the institutions they lead.”
Also adding his voice, human rights activist, Dele Farotimi said: “The reality is that Yele is completely correct. The Inspector General of Police is illegal. He has exceeded his term in office, but what the presidency is telling you is that the law does not matter.”
Not done, Sowore also chimed in that it was “unacceptable for Kayode Egbetokun, the Illegal General of Police, to supervise the retirement of his contemporaries and age-falsifying co-conspirators while retaining his position in the Nigeria Police Force. Equal principles must apply to everyone. #EgbetokunMustGo #RevolutionNow.”
Quote
For the avoidance of doubt, Egbetokun’s continous stay in office is in line with the provisions of the Police Act amended in 2024 which allow the occupant of the office to enjoy a term of four years effective from the date of his appointment as IGP, in this case, 31st day of October 2023