IGP Tenure Extension: Court dismisses case against President Buhari
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed the case against President Muhammadu Buhari for extending Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Adamu’s tenure upholding the President’s power to extend the tenure of a retiring IGP pending the completion of the process for the appointment of a substantive successor.
Recall that a lawyer Maxwell Okpara challenged President Muhammadu Buhari’s decision to extend the tenure of the immediate past IGP, Muhammed Abubakar Adamu for three months.
However, Justice Ahmed Mohammed who presided over the suit FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2021 held that since the Constitution and the Police Act empower the President to appoint an IGP, by implication, he could extend the tenure of a retiring IGP before concluding the required consultation with the Police Council and other processes required for the appointment of a substantive replacement. the nation reported.
“It is not in doubt that the first defendant has the power to appoint and did appoint the second defendant on the 15th of January 2019 as the IGP.
“The said appointment is not in contention as it was done in accordance with sections 215(1)(a) and 216(2) of the 1999 Constitution and the Police Act.”
Mohammed stated that the provisions of both the Constitution and the Nigeria Police Act is silent on whether or not President could extend the tenure of an IGP whose tenure has ended.
“While the provisions of both the Constitution and the Police Act are clear and unambiguous, and empower the first defendant to appoint the second defendant as the IGP.”
“However, and to my understanding, the first defendant, having duly appointed the second defendant as that IGP in the first place, he has the right to extend his tenure pending the appointment of a substantive IGP.
“The said extension, stricto sensu (in strict sense) is not tantamount to appointment, but a stop-gap measure, pending the appointment of the substantive IGP.
“It is my firm opinion that pending the consultation with the Police Council, the office of the IGP cannot be kept vacant.
“In addition to that, both the Constitution and the Police Act do not expressly forbid the first defendant from either appointing or extending the tenure of the office of the IGP, who was already appointed in the first place, but was retiring.
“On the whole therefore, it is my finding that the plaintiff has abysmally failed to make out any case against the defendants that will entitle him to the grant of the reliefs sought. This suit is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Mohammed said