The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mohammed Adamu has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgement of the Court of Appeal which voided the Police Act, 2020 and his powers to recruit 10,000 constables.
The notice of appeal which has 20 grounds of October 15, adding to an initial three grounds of appeal filed on October 2, was jointly filed by the IGP, the Nigerian Police Force, and the Federal Ministry of Police Affairs against the Police Service Commission (PSC).
The appellants through their lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN) originally asked the Supreme Court to order the stay of execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal had in their judgment unanimously held that the Police Act is a breach of Paragraph 30 Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution which empowers the PSC to appoint persons into offices in the Nigeria Police Force except the Office of the Inspector General of Police.
The appellate court held that IGP and the NPF lacked the power to recruit the 10,000 constables who were recruited by the police.
The court further ruled that the constitutional provision granted power to the commission to appoint persons into offices in the Nigeria Police “and did not exclude constables and cadets to Nigeria Police Academy from offices in the Nigeria Police into which the Appellant (PSC) can appoint persons.”
In the notice of appeal, Izinyon argued on behalf of the IGP among others, that the power of the NPF and the IGP to enlist the recruit constables was distinct from the power of the PSC to appoint them.
He faulted the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Nigeria Police Regulations 1968 conferring the power of “enlistment of recruit constables” conferred on the NPF was inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution.
Izinyon also said that Section 71 of the Police Regulation, 1968 was not synonymous with the power of “appointment” used in the Nigerian Constitution or the Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act.
“The power to enlist recruit constables conferred on the 1st appellant (NPF) is distinct and is not the same function conferred on the 1st respondent (PSC),” he said.