By Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd)
Alas, the Nigerian Senate Passes Controversial Amendment Bill To Extend Police Inspector General’s Tenure Beyond September.
Despite the observations by stakeholders, the Nigerian Senate on Tuesday (hurriedly) passed the Police Act (Amendment) Bill 2024, seeking to amend the Police Act of 2020. Recall that the bill failed to gain support from stakeholders at a hearing held by the House of Representatives Committee on Police Affairs on Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The bill, aimed at amending the Nigeria Police Act 2020, seeks to increase the retirement age of police officers (read: the retirement age and tenure of current IGP Kayode Egbetokun) from 60 to 65 years and their (his) tenure of service from 35 to 40 years. Obviously the bill is tailor-made for the current Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, who is set to retire by September 2024.
The proposed extension of the service year and retirement age for police officers met with widespread criticism from key stakeholders, including the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Ministry of Police Affairs, and the National Salaries and Wages Commission during the public hearing. The Ministry of Police Affairs for example, in its submission warned that implementing the extension would have unintended and far-reaching consequences, detrimental to the overall health and operations of the police force.
Moreover, it would set a dangerous precedent for other agencies, such as the military and paramilitary organisations. The ministry also argued that increasing the service years of police personnel would lead to stagnation, hindering progress and innovation within the force, while also negatively impacting motivation and adaptability.
Nevertheless the Akpabio (mis)led Senate quickly pushed the bill through.
Now, apart from the fact that this extension goes completely against the provisions of Public Service Rule PSR 2006, Chapter 2, Paragraph 020810 (ii) which states: ‘No officer shall be allowed to stay in service after attaining the retirement age of 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier’, there is also the iniquity of making a new law just for the benefit of one specific person.
Additionally, global best practice require that when an amendment or a new law is to be passed that confers additional advantages to a particular office, the current occupant of the office (who usually will be the initiator) should not be the first beneficiary of the intended added advantages and this simple logical formula ensures that I do not enter an office and propose changes for my personal benefit.
This move will naturally open the flood gates for such requests in the military, intelligence and other security agencies and paramilitary organizations. Already, the mistake made by PMB by allowing his military service chiefs for an unprecedented five and a half years is causing organizational distortions, and had led to many premature retirements of otherwise quality officers. I cautioned several times that if one President is allowed to extend the tenure of his service chiefs to five and half years we may have another president who keeps his own for 8 years.
In addition, it is to be expected, that any of the top most officers left behind who knows he has no hope of heading the service, will automatically be engrossed in filling his pockets during the “injury time”.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF FIXING TENURE FOR SECURITY AND MILITARY CHIEFS IN A DEMOCRACY
In most democratic countries, the tenures and age of retirement of heads of military, police and other intelligence and security related services is fixed by law allowing for no arbitrary extension except in extraordinary circumstances where for example the country is at war. Fixing tenure for security and military chiefs in a democracy can offer several advantages, contributing to stability, accountability, and efficiency within the defense and security sectors. Here are some of the key benefits:
Advantages of Fixed/Stable Tenure for Security and Military Chiefs
1. Stability and Continuity
Consistent Leadership: Fixed tenure ensures consistent leadership, which can be crucial for implementing long-term strategies and policies.
Continuity in Operations: A fixed term allows for continuity in military and security operations, avoiding abrupt changes that could disrupt ongoing missions.
2. Professionalism and Meritocracy
Reduced Political Interference: Fixed tenures can help insulate military and security chiefs from political pressures, allowing them to make decisions based on professional and strategic considerations rather than political expediency.
Merit-Based Promotions: Ensuring that tenure is fixed and not subject to political whims can promote a merit-based system where promotions and appointments are based on performance and qualifications.
3. Strategic Planning
Long-Term Planning: With a guaranteed term, chiefs can focus on long-term planning and implementation of strategies without the constant concern of being replaced.
Policy Consistency: Fixed tenure allows for consistent policy application, which is critical for the successful implementation of national security strategies.
4. Accountability and Performance
Clear Expectations: Defined terms of service come with clear expectations and performance metrics, enhancing accountability.
Performance Reviews: Periodic evaluations at the end of a tenure can provide opportunities for reviewing and assessing performance, leading to improvements and necessary changes.
5. Reduced Turnover and Instability
Minimized Leadership Changes: Frequent changes in leadership can lead to instability and confusion within the ranks. Fixed tenures reduce the frequency of such changes.
Focused Leadership: Chiefs with fixed terms are more likely to focus on their responsibilities rather than on maintaining favor with political leaders to secure their positions.
6. Enhanced Institutional Memory
Knowledge Retention: Longer tenures allow chiefs to accumulate and retain institutional knowledge, which is vital for effective decision-making and leadership.
Training and Mentorship: Chiefs with fixed terms have the opportunity to mentor and train their successors, ensuring a smoother transition and better-prepared leadership.
7. Improved Civil-Military Relations
Democratic Oversight: Fixed tenures can enhance the relationship between military/security forces and civilian oversight bodies, promoting transparency and democratic control.
Trust Building: When security and military chiefs are seen as stable and professional, it can build public trust in the institutions they lead.
8. Enhanced Morale and Discipline
Predictable Leadership: A stable and predictable leadership structure can boost morale among the ranks, as personnel have clear guidance and stable leadership to follow.
Focus on Duties: With fixed tenures, security and military personnel can focus more on their duties rather than on internal politics and succession battles.
Conclusion
Fixing the tenure for security and military chiefs in a democracy offers numerous advantages, including promoting stability, accountability, and professionalism within the defense and security sectors. By ensuring consistent leadership, reducing political interference, and enhancing long-term strategic planning, fixed tenures contribute to a more effective and reliable security apparatus, ultimately strengthening national security and democratic governance.
On the downside, the disadvantages of ad hoc changes in the tenure and age of retirement of Military and Police Chiefs breeds low morale due to career uncertainty. Worse any top police/military/paramilitary/intelligence officer who knows that it is improbable that he will ever head his eservice will concentrate on taking whatever he could cart away from the service in his remaining “injury time.”
Other disadvantages include Leaders may be appointed based on loyalty to political leaders rather than on merit and qualifications, leading to less competent leadership; The perception that promotions and appointments are based on political favoritism rather than merit can undermine morale and cohesion; Leaders who are perceived as politically appointed may struggle to command respect and authority within the ranks; Leaders may feel pressured to engage in corrupt practices to secure their positions or appease political patrons (Already there are unconfirmed stories that top security officers set aside monies the way politicians do in order to seek leadership positions); Mismanagement: Lack of stability can lead to poor management practices and inefficiencies within security and defense institutions. In sum, such adhocracy can lead to significant disadvantages, including increased political interference, instability, reduced accountability, and operational inefficiencies.
It can undermine the professionalism, morale, and effectiveness of security institutions, ultimately weakening national security and eroding public trust. To mitigate these risks, establishing fixed tenures for these key positions and avoiding abrupt changes to suit a particular individual can help promote stability, professionalism, and strategic continuity. Democracy is a system of checks and balance. Whatever powers the President has can be regulated by the Legislature. Nigerian Senate has failed in its duty.
Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd) is a Security Sector Reform Consultant
