The legality of the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun’s tenure extension has been called into question by Tonye Jaja, a legal practitioner and secretary of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP). Jaja contends that only a constitutional amendment, specifically altering Sections 214, 215, and 216 of the 1999 Constitution, can legitimize such an extension. This stance directly contradicts the position of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, who has declared the extension lawful based on an amendment to the Police Act. This disagreement centers on the interplay between the Constitution and the Police Act in determining the IG’s term limits, particularly concerning the IG reaching the retirement age of 60.
Initially, the AGF indicated that Egbetokun’s appointment, effective October 31, 2023, would terminate upon his reaching 60 on September 4, 2024. However, a subsequent amendment to the Police Act enabled an IG to serve a full four-year term as stipulated in Section 7(6) of the Act, regardless of reaching the age of 60. Consequently, the AGF affirmed that this amendment legally extended Egbetokun’s tenure to October 31, 2027, completing his four-year term. This interpretation, however, has been challenged by Jaja, who argues the supremacy of the Constitution in this matter.
Jaja’s argument hinges on the premise that the office of the Inspector General of Police is a creation of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, any modifications to the IG’s tenure, including extensions beyond the retirement age, must be implemented through a constitutional amendment rather than through legislation like the Police Act. He emphasizes that the Police Act, being a statutory instrument, cannot supersede the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. This constitutional argument forms the crux of the disagreement between Jaja and the AGF, raising questions about the correct procedure for extending the IG’s tenure.
To further bolster his argument, Jaja draws a parallel to the Fifth Alteration Act, No. 37 of June 8, 2023, which amended the Constitution to establish a uniform retirement age for judicial officers. He highlights that since the offices of these judicial officers are constitutionally established, any changes to their retirement age necessitate a constitutional amendment. Jaja argues that the same principle applies to the IG’s office, reinforcing the need for a constitutional amendment rather than relying on an amendment to the Police Act.
The core of this legal debate revolves around the hierarchical relationship between the Constitution and other laws. Jaja asserts the Constitution’s supremacy, highlighting that any law contradicting it is null and void. He maintains that the Police Act amendment, while aiming to extend the IG’s tenure, cannot override the constitutional provisions regarding the IG’s office and potential retirement age. This argument underscores the fundamental legal principle of constitutional supremacy and its implications for the IG’s tenure.
Jaja’s letter to the AGF serves as a formal challenge to the legality of the IG’s tenure extension, urging the AGF to reconsider his position and adhere to the constitutional requirements for such changes. He warns that failure to do so will result in legal action by ALDRAP at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria to seek clarification and a definitive legal interpretation of the matter. This potential legal challenge underscores the seriousness of the disagreement and the need for a clear resolution to ensure the legality of the IG’s continued service.
