• Super Admin
• 07 Mar, 2026

In a constitutional democracy governed by law, not speculation, not agitation, and certainly not social media interpretation, clarity must prevail over noise. Recent commentary suggesting that the Inspector-General of Police, IGP Olatunji Disu, must compulsorily retire upon attaining the age of 60 in April 2026 betrays either a misunderstanding of the law or a deliberate misreading of statutory provisions. The legal position is not ambiguous; it is precise and binding. Under Section 18(8) of the Nigeria Police Act, before its amendment, every police officer was required to retire upon attaining 60 years of age or 35 years of service, whichever came first. That was the general rule. However, as every first-year law student understands, a general provision yields to a specific provision, and the law has since evolved. In 2024, the National Assembly amended the Police Act by inserting Section 18A. The amendment provides unequivocally: "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (8) ... 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." Section 7(6) of the Act states clearly: "The person appointed to the office of the Inspector-General of Police shall hold office for four years." The operative word is "Notwithstanding." In statutory interpretation, "notwithstanding" is a term of exclusion and supremacy. It means the new provision overrides any contrary provision in the same statute. Therefore, the retirement age of 60 no longer applies to a duly appointed Inspector-General during his four-year tenure: the law could not be clearer. Much of the previous controversy surrounding the tenure of former IGP Kayode Egbetokun stemmed from a well-known principle of statutory interpretation: nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis -- a new law regulates the future, not the past. The courts have consistently held that statutes do not operate retrospectively unless expressly stated. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several landmark decisions, including: In simple terms, a law cannot benefit an appointment made before the law came into force, unless the statute clearly says so. That debate, however, does not arise in the present case. IGP Olatunji Disu was appointed after the Police (Amendment) Act 2024 had already become law. This is the critical distinction. Unlike any previous controversy, his appointment falls squarely within the amended statutory framework. Section 18A applies directly and prospectively to his tenure. There is no retroactivity question. No interpretational grey area. No constitutional tension. By operation of law, his tenure runs for four years from the date of appointment, irrespective of his age during that period. The statute governs, binds and prevails. In a democracy, every citizen, including activists, is entitled to express an opinion. But opinion does not amend legislation; advocacy does not override statute, and public rhetoric does not invalidate an Act of the National Assembly. Until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise, the Police (Amendment) Act 2024 remains valid and enforceable: that is the rule of law. Beyond the black letters of the law lies legislative intent. Security leadership requires continuity, and reform requires time. The amendment was not crafted for an individual; it was designed to protect the institution of the Office of the Inspector-General of Police from instability arising from mid-tenure retirement technicalities. A fixed four-year tenure ensures, leadership continuity, policy stability, reform implementation and strategic security planning This is a governance decision, not a personal privilege. The legal position is straightforward: Section 18A overrides Section 18(8); Section 7(6) guarantees four-year tenure. The amendment applies prospectively. IGP Olatunji Disu's appointment falls squarely within the amended regime. Therefore, his tenure is legally secured and statutorily protected until completion of the four-year term, unless removed in accordance with the law. In constitutional governance, clarity must triumph over conjecture. The law has spoken. Source: https://thesun.ng/understanding-the-law-why-the-inspector-generals-tenure-is-firmly-anchored-in-statute/