Nigeria once again finds itself at a familiar crossroads following the appointment of new Acting Inspector-General of Police for the . What should ordinarily be a routine leadership transition has instead ignited national debate over merit, institutional stability, legality, and the troubling pattern of power concentration in the country’s security architecture.
At the heart of the controversy is the question of tenure and timing. Disu, born April 13, 1966, is reportedly weeks away from the mandatory retirement age of 60 as stipulated under Public Service Rules. Critics argue that elevating an officer so close to retirement risks triggering a cascade of forced retirements among senior officers — including those younger in age and longer in potential years of service. Among those frequently mentioned is , a Deputy Inspector-General who, at 52, theoretically has several more years in service. The optics, critics insist, suggest institutional waste — years of taxpayer-funded training and experience potentially truncated overnight.
Defenders of the appointment, however, counter that the choice of an Inspector-General is constitutionally the prerogative of the President. They insist the debate must not be reduced to ethnicity or rank politics. According to this view, Disu and Mba entered the Force the same day in 1992, albeit through different entry cadres, and career progression patterns have historically been shaped by varying promotional pathways. Supporters maintain that Disu’s professional record, discipline, and reputation for incorruptibility qualify him for the role irrespective of the calendar.
A crucial legal dimension underpins the debate. Amendments to the reportedly introduced provisions allowing an appointed Inspector-General to complete a four-year term regardless of age or years of service. If so, the retirement argument may be legally neutralized. Yet legality does not automatically resolve concerns about institutional precedent. Laws amended to accommodate incumbents or specific transitions often leave behind deeper questions about motive, timing, and long-term structural impact.
The conversation inevitably drifts into Nigeria’s unresolved tension between merit and identity politics. Some commentators argue that allegations of ethnic favoritism ignore a recent history of perceived regional concentration of security leadership under former President . Others insist that two wrongs cannot make a constitutional right. The danger, as many observers warn, lies in normalizing retaliatory balancing rather than institutional fairness.
What remains largely uncontested is the dire condition of the Nigeria Police Force itself. Beyond appointment arithmetic lies a deeper crisis: systemic corruption, political interference, disregard for court orders, selective law enforcement, and the erosion of public trust. These structural deficiencies dwarf the personalities involved. An IGP’s legacy will ultimately not be judged by the politics of appointment but by measurable reforms — internal discipline, operational independence, accountability mechanisms, and restoration of professional pride within the ranks.
Nigeria’s policing crisis is generational. Young officers enter the Force with hope, only to confront a culture that often undermines integrity. Families who entrust their children to the uniform deserve a system that rewards professionalism rather than patronage. The real national question is whether this leadership change will confront entrenched dysfunction or merely recycle power dynamics.
The President has exercised his authority. The law, as amended, appears to shield the decision. But democracy demands scrutiny beyond legality — it demands transparency, equity, and institutional foresight. The focus must now shift from who was appointed to what will change. If this moment does not translate into reform of recruitment standards, promotion pathways, disciplinary systems, and insulation from political capture, then the controversy will have been another missed opportunity.
Nigeria’s democracy is not weakened by debate; it is weakened by silence. The appointment of an Acting Inspector-General should not divide the nation along ethnic or partisan lines. It should compel an honest reckoning with the condition of the Force entrusted with protecting citizens. The burden now rests on leadership to prove that this decision serves the Republic — not merely the politics of the moment.
