The Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has expressed concerns over the distorted fact about Police Act Review (PAR) and extension of service for the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
They said that it is a standard legislative practice for the National Assembly to review and update laws to align with current national realities.
A statement by the Force Public Relations Officer ( FPRO) Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Olumuyiwa Adejobi, on Monday, stated that the NPF, was deeply perturbed by the dissemination of false information across various media platforms, notably the distorted publication regarding the proposed amendment to the Nigeria Police Act 2020.
He said that the amendment seeks to extend the years of service for Police officers from 35 to 40 years, and the age limit from 60 to 65 years.
According to the statement, the misleading publications alleged that IGP Kayode Adeolu Egbetokun personally initiated this bill to prolong his tenure as the 22nd indigenous IGP, and has allegedly invested significantly in lobbying lawmakers to facilitate its passage.
“It is vital to clarify unequivocally that the bill was originally introduced during the 8th Assembly but did not progress beyond the initial stages before the Assembly’s dissolution”
“It is standard legislative practice to review and update laws to align with current national realities”
“It is regrettable that certain media outlets and their sponsors have chosen to propagate baseless accusations, ignorantly disregarding the fact that any modification to existing legislation is designed to enhance its effectiveness and relevance” Adejobi stated
The force spokesperson explained the true motivations behind this initiative, saying, “one needs only to look at the IGP’s steadfast commitment to reforming the Nigeria Police Force and his advocacy for this bill stems from a genuine belief in its potential to improve the conditions of service for police officers and thereby bolster security nationwide, rather than seeking personal gain. It comes from the place of duty rather than benefit”
He said that it was important to note that the tenure of an IGP was already prescribed as four years, with the president being the sole authority empowered to remove an IGP before the completion of his tenure.
