Editor

Few things undermine the rule of law more than winning in court yet being denied the fruits of victory. The plight of the reinstated Cadet ASPs of Courses 18, 19 and 20 raises serious questions about judicial authority, institutional accountability, and the true meaning of justice

They were enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force as Constables. However, based on their educational qualifications, they were subsequently offered fresh appointments as Cadet Assistant Superintendents of Police (ASPs) on Grade Level 08. This was not a promotion or an upgrade of their existing appointments; it was a completely fresh appointment, evidenced by new appointment letters bearing new dates and distinct conditions of service.

In 2021, Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewunmi of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, in Suit Nos. NICN/ABJ/345/2019 and NICN/ABJ/353/2019, held that appointment as a Cadet ASP constituted a fresh appointment and not a merger of service. The court further held that the appointment dates stated in the officers’ appointment letters remained valid and could not be reviewed.

The Police Service Commission (PSC) and the Nigeria Police Force implemented the judgment with effect from 29 July 2021. For four uninterrupted years, the officers continued their service under the arrangements established by the judgment.

However, on 31 January 2025, at the first extraordinary meeting of the 6th Management Board, the Police Service Commission resolved that the officers’ periods of service should be merged for the purpose of calculating their retirement dates. Consequently, members of Cadet ASP Courses 18, 19 and 20, ranging in rank from Superintendent of Police (SP) to Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG), were compulsorily and wrongfully retired.

The affected officers challenged their retirement in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/28/2025. On 30 September 2025, the National Industrial Court declared their retirement wrongful and ordered their unconditional reinstatement. The court reaffirmed that the appointment dates stated in their appointment letters were sacrosanct and not subject to review. It also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the alteration of those dates.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Police Service Commission and the Nigeria Police Force appealed. On 14 April 2026, the Court of Appeal affirmed the reinstatement of the officers, the wrongful nature of their retirement, and the validity of the appointment dates contained in their appointment letters. The judgment remains subsisting and binding in accordance with Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

Following the judgment, the Commission issued Letter No. PSC/2116/II/234 dated 29 June 2026, reinstating the officers unconditionally. Subsequently, Force Headquarters issued Circular No. CB:8400/FS/FHQ/ABJ/Vol.2/238 dated 31 July 2026, directing the reinstated officers to report for a six-month induction program at the Police Staff College, Jos, and the National Institute for Police Studies (NIPS), Abuja, respectively. Requiring officers who had served for over two decades and attained ranks ranging from SP to AIG to undergo six months of induction raises serious questions about the necessity and purpose of the exercise. Such a prolonged requirement may reasonably be perceived as punitive. If any induction was genuinely necessary, a programme of no more than two weeks would have been more proportionate.

In late September 2026, while the officers were undergoing the induction exercise, the programme was abruptly suspended. They were directed to vacate the institutions and await further instructions. This followed an interim order obtained without hearing the affected parties in Kano Division, in Suit No. NICN/KN/51/2026, at the instance of an NGO, Advocacy for Human Rights and Cultural Values for Development Initiatives. The circumstances raised serious questions about the organisation’s standing to intervene in the employment dispute and whether the court process was being used to frustrate the implementation of the existing judgments.

On 28 September 2026, Hon. Justice Buhari Sani vacated and set aside the interim order on the grounds of abuse of court process and the deliberate concealment of the subsisting Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 14 April 2026.

Despite the setting aside of the interim order, there has been no effective recall of the officers to resume the induction exercise or proceed to their respective commands. While the authorities acted swiftly to implement the interim order suspending the programme, they have not demonstrated the same urgency in restoring the officers to duty. As matters stand, the affected officers remain at home without posting and without salaries since 31 January 2025.

Worse still, Force Headquarters Circular No. CB.4001/FS/FHQ/ABJ/V.T2/52, with DTO: 091715/10/2026, invited officers to participate in promotion examinations. Yet, the reinstated officers of Force Entrants Courses 18, 19 and 20 were excluded, while junior officers were being considered for promotion ahead of them. This exclusion raises serious concerns about fairness, equal treatment and the protection of the officers’ lawful career interests following their reinstatement.

As if the wrongful retirement and subsequent obstacles to reinstatement were not enough, criminal prosecution was also employed in circumstances that appeared calculated to frustrate, humiliate and discredit the affected officers. While civil proceedings challenging their retirement were pending, criminal charges were initiated before the Industrial Court in relation to the same subject matter. Such circumstances raise concerns about the use of criminal proceedings to interfere with a labour dispute and to exert pressure on officers seeking to enforce their rights.

However, thanks to the ever-vigilant Nigerian judiciary, which, in the course of hearing the maliciously trumped-up charges, quickly read between the lines and detected the sinister motives. The judge did not waste time in striking out all the charges on the grounds of incompetence, having been initiated in bad faith.

It is an established principle of law that judicial decisions are binding on the parties and authorities concerned. Matters that have been conclusively determined by competent courts should not be endlessly reopened or relitigated. There must be an end to litigation. Yet, the actions and omissions of the Police Service Commission and the Nigeria Police Force appear inconsistent with this fundamental principle.

It is particularly unfortunate that a law enforcement institution, which is constitutionally expected to uphold the law, should be associated with allegations of disobedience to court orders or selective compliance with judicial decisions. A judgment that has not been set aside remains binding and must be obeyed. No public authority is entitled to disregard a subsisting judgment simply because it disagrees with the outcome.

This position is reinforced by Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, which requires the decisions of the Court of Appeal to be enforced by all authorities and persons throughout the Federation. In Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of obedience to court orders and the dangers of executive disobedience to the rule of law.

Regrettably, the affected officers have successfully challenged their wrongful retirement before the National Industrial Court and the Court of Appeal. An interim order that threatened to frustrate their reinstatement was subsequently set aside for abuse of court process. Yet, they remain at home without posting or salary and have been excluded from the ongoing promotion exercise while junior officers are considered for advancement. The situation raises a troubling question about the practical value of judicial victory when its benefits remain unrealised.

Ultimately, the true test of the rule of law is not whether citizens can obtain favourable judgments from the courts, but whether the authorities to whom they are directed respect and fully implement those judgments. The officers of Cadet ASP Courses 18, 19 and 20 have fought, won, and secured judicial affirmation of their rights, yet they remain at home without posting or salary and are excluded from the ongoing promotion exercise.

This raises a fundamental question: what is the value of victory in court if the very authorities bound to uphold the law fail to give practical effect to the judgments? Justice cannot be said to have been fully served until these officers are recalled to duty, their service records and seniority are duly protected, their lawful entitlements are addressed, and they are accorded equal consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. The rule of law must not end at the courtroom door, and no public authority should be permitted to reduce a binding judicial victory to a mere paper triumph. A nation cannot claim to uphold the rule of law when those who win in court are left waiting indefinitely for the justice the courts have already granted them.