The National Industrial Court has ruled that the Police Service Commission (PSC) must compensate retired AIG Mbu Joseph Mbu with a sum of ₦40 million in general damages. This decision was made by Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, who deemed Mbu’s retirement before reaching the mandatory age of 60 years as unlawful.
‘I hold that the claimant’s premature retirement through a press release on July 2, 2016, is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.’
Additionally, the court invalidated the claimed retirement and officially recognized the claimant’s status as an active officer of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) until he turned 60 years old on May 10, 2018.
The court also stipulated that the defendant must compensate Mbu with his salaries, allowances, and entitlements from July 2, 2016 (the date he retired) until May 10, 2018, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 60.
Alongside the verdict, the judge ordered the payment of ₦750,000 to the claimant to cover the cost of the legal proceedings. The judge explicitly warned that if the defendant fails to meet the court’s requirements within 30 days, they will be subjected to a 10 percent annual interest.
Despite this, the court dismissed the claimant’s application for promotion to the role of DIG and reinstatement, determining that these specific requests were unwarranted.
The court clarified that the claimant’s argument cannot be upheld since he had already reached the mandatory retirement age on May 10, 2018, during the pendency of the lawsuit.
The claimant, Mbu, initiated the lawsuit against the commission regarding his purported compulsory retirement on July 2, 2016, during his tenure as the commandant of the Police Staff College.
In his statement, he asserted that his date of birth is May 10, 1958, and he joined the police force on December 11, 1985. Furthermore, he claimed that he had not yet attained the mandatory retirement age of 60 and had not completed 35 years of service when he retired in 2016.
Read also: Three Former IGPs Compete To Lead The PSC
The claimant pleaded with the court to nullify his retirement, highlighting that it was executed through a press release instead of following the proper procedure of serving a statutory notice of retirement.
Additionally, the claimant sought an order from the court, compelling the defendant to fulfill their obligation of paying his salaries, allowances, and other entitlements from July 2016 to 2018, the time frame during which he would have been due for retirement.
In addition to his other claims, the claimant insisted on receiving his terminal benefits, along with a request for ₦500 million in general damages and ₦20 million to cover the legal costs.
On the other hand, the defendant, in its submissions, contended that the claimant was not retired via a press release but rather was ceremonially pulled out from the force.
In their defense, the defendant emphasised that promotion within the force is based on merit and fulfillment of specific requirements, asserting that the claimant did not satisfy all the necessary conditions for promotion.
The defendant insisted that the reorganization within the NPF during the claimant’s retirement followed proper protocols and affected multiple individuals, highlighting the comprehensive nature of the restructuring process.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged that the defendant failed to appear in court and present its defense, which could be interpreted as abandoning its case. However, the court clarified that this abandonment did not relieve the claimant of the burden of proving his case.
It was firmly established by the judge that pleadings should not be confused with evidence, given the defendant’s absence from court despite multiple hearing notices being served.
Furthermore, Obaseki-Osaghae asserted that the defendant’s failure to challenge the claimant’s submissions resulted in the abandonment of their case.
She asserted that since the claimant had successfully proven their case based on strong and credible evidence, without relying on the weaknesses of the defendant’s case, they were entitled to obtain some of the reliefs they sought.
