TheCable

Mohammed Adamu, inspector-general of police, has filed an appeal before the supreme court seeking to upturn the judgement of the court of appeal which nullified the recruitment of 10,000 constables carried out by him and the Nigeria police force (NPF) in 2019.

A three-man panel of the appellate court led by Olabisi Ige had on Wednesday ruled that the IGP and the NPF lack powers to recruit constables into the force.

The panel unanimously held that the power to carry out the recruitment was exclusively that of the Police Service Commission (PSC).

But the IGP and the NPF, through their counsel, Alex Izinyon, have filed a notice of appeal hinged on three grounds together with an application for a stay of execution of the judgement.

Also, in a letter dated October 2, 2020, and addressed to the chairman of the PSC, Izinyon asked the commission to avoid taking any step towards enforcing the judgement, pending the determination of the appeal before the apex court.

The letter which was copied to Kanu Agabi, PSC’s lead counsel, read in part: “In view of the above, and the settled position of the law having regards to these two notices nothing should be done by whatsoever means enforcing the judgment in the circumstances, especially having regards to the national security and implication under any guise of such enforcement.”

In its appeal, the IGP and the NPF submitted that the court of appeal “erred in law when they held that the provision of section 71 of the Nigeria Police Regulations 1968 made pursuant to section 46 of the Police Act is inconsistent with the provision of paragraph 30 Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution”.

They argued that section 71 of the Nigeria Police Regulations 1968 specifically conferred on the IGP “the power and responsibility of enlisting recruit constables”, while according to “Paragraph 30 Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and section 6 of the Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act, 2001, the 1st respondent is empowered to appoint persons to offices in the 1st appellant”.

The appellants said the court was wrong to have held that the IGP and the NPF “are not conferred with powers to enlist recruit constables”.

“The unequivocal power conferred the 1st respondent by virtue of paragraph 30, Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution is the power ‘to appoint person into offices in the 1st applicant’ and not one for the enlistment of recruit constables as conferred on the 1st appellant,” they submitted.

The appellants are, therefore, praying the apex court for an order setting aside the judgement of the court of appeal.