Uncertainty Trails Tenure of New IGP Disu Amid Legal Interpretations

By Olumide Bajulaiye

The appointment of Olatunji Disu as Nigeria’s Inspector-General of Police (IGP) has reignited debate over how long he can legally remain in office, with conflicting interpretations of the Police Act 2020 and its 2024 amendment shaping the discussion.

Disu, born on April 13, 1966, is set to attain the mandatory retirement age of 60 in April 2026, barely months after his appointment. He will also reach 35 years in service in May 2027, both thresholds traditionally used to determine retirement for police officers.

At the heart of the debate are two provisions of the law. Section 18(8) of the Police Act states that officers must retire after 35 years of service or upon reaching 60 years of age—whichever comes first. This long-standing rule suggests that Disu’s tenure could be cut short as early as April 2026, limiting his time in office to roughly a year.

However, another provision complicates this interpretation. Section 7(6) of the Act provides that the IGP shall serve a four-year term. More significantly, a 2024 amendment introduced Section 18(8A), which appears to override the earlier retirement rule by allowing an appointed IGP to remain in office for the full duration specified in their appointment letter.

This amendment has created two dominant perspectives.

The first holds that the traditional retirement rule still applies, meaning Disu would have to step down upon turning 60, regardless of his appointment. Proponents of this view argue that the “whichever comes first” clause remains a clear and binding limitation.

The second perspective, however, leans on the 2024 amendment, arguing that it was specifically designed to eliminate such ambiguities and ensure stability in police leadership. Under this interpretation, Disu could serve a full four-year tenure, potentially remaining in office until 2030.

Legal analysts note that the amendment appears to prioritise tenure certainty over age and service limits, particularly for the office of the IGP. They argue that the inclusion of the phrase “notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (8)” signals legislative intent to create an exception for the position.

Still, the issue may ultimately require judicial clarification or further legislative guidance to resolve any lingering ambiguity.

Beyond the legal debate, the question of tenure has broader implications for policing and security governance in Nigeria. A shortened tenure could affect continuity in reforms and long-term planning, while a guaranteed four-year term may provide the stability needed to implement structural changes within the force.

As Olatunji Disu settles into office amid heightened public expectations, the interpretation of the law will play a decisive role in determining not just how long he serves, but also the extent of reforms he can realistically pursue.