By Olaitan Ibrahim
The Police Service Commission (PSC) has said it has no constitutional powers over the appointment or removal of the Inspector-General of Police (I-G).
Mr Ikechukwu Ani, the Head of Press and Public Relations, gave the clarification in statement on Monday.
The statement followed orders by PSC in a statement on Friday that police officers who have attained 60 years of age or 35 years in service should immediately proceed on retirement.
Following the statement, critics have called for immediate removal of the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun who, by the directive of the PSC is due for retirement.
While alluding to this in the statement, Ani said PSC has been receiving calls, messages, and reports about the I-G’s status, after its decision regarding the retirement of some officers.
But PSC, in the statement said it lacked powers over the appointment or removal of IGP from office.
“The commission wishes to clarify that it does not have constitutional powers to determine the appointment or removal of the Inspector-General of Police.
“The PSC is one of the Federal Executive Bodies established under Section 153(m) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
“Paragraph 30, Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution and Clause 6(1) of the PSC (Establishment) Act, 2001 are very clear on the commission’s powers.
“According to the Constitution, the commission is responsible for appointing, promoting, dismissing, and exercising disciplinary control over persons in the Nigeria Police Force, except the I-G.
“The law is clear about the commission’s mandate, which does not extend to the I-G, who is appointed by the President with advice from the Police Council,” he said.
Ani stated that the commission, at its 1st Extraordinary Meeting of the 6th Management Board on Friday, only considered the regularisation of the appointment date for Cadet ASPs and Inspector Force Entrants.
He clarified that the decision had nothing to do with the I-G or his office. The commission revisited its decision of Sept. 27 and 28, 2017, at the meetings.
“The decision was that the earlier directive to assign Force Entrants their Cadet appointment date, rather than their enlistment date, contradicted the principles of merging services in the Public Service.
“It violated Public Service Rule No. 020908(i & ii), which mandates retirement after 35 years of service or upon reaching 60 years of age,” he said.