The Nigeria Police Force has denied disregard for a court order by the current administration of the Office of the Inspector-General of Police (I-G).The Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, said this in a statement on Tuesday in Abuja.
Adejobi said the current Office of the I-G was not aware of any court order with respect to a matter making the round in the media.
The media reports had accused the I-G of disobeying a court order reinstating a dismissed officer of the Force.
“It is instructive to note that the case in point concerns an officer who was dismissed as far back as 1992.
“This was a few years after the current I-G, Mr Usman Baba, joined the Nigeria Police Force, based on available facts gleaned from the reports.
“The most recent judgement on the matter was given in 2011 which should ordinarily not fall under the direct purview of the current administration of the Force,” he said.
Adejobi said the media report was strange and astonishing, adding that the I-G had directed the Commissioner of Police in charge of the Force Legal Unit to investigate the allegation.
He said the investigation was to ascertain the position of the court and proffer informed legal advice for prompt and necessary action.
Adejobi reiterated the commitment of the I-G to continue to uphold the rule of law and synergy with the judiciary to ensure quick dispensation of justice for an improved criminal justice system.
A Federal High Court, Abuja, had on Tuesday, committed the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, Mr Usman Baba, to three-month imprisonment over alleged refusal to obey a sister court judgment reinstating a police officer, Patrick Okoli, who was compulsorily retired back to work.
Justice Bolaji Olajuwon, in a ruling on the contempt proceedings filed by Okoli’s lawyer, Arinze Egbo, also warned Baba against non-compliance with the earlier court judgment.
Justice Olajuwon warned that if the I-G failed to purge himself of the contempt, he shall be liable to another three months jail term.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Okoli, in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/637/2009, had sued the I-G as a sole respondent in the matter.
The plaintiff, who prayed the court to order for his reinstatement, said he was unlawfully retired in 1992 by the Police Council, presently known as Police Service Commission (PSC), while serving in Bauchi State Command as a chief Superintendent of police, among others.
He said his compulsory retirement, under Decree 17 of 1984, was illegal.
Justice Okorowo, in a judgment delivered on Oct. 21, 2011, gave an order of mandamus compelling the respondent (I-G) to do his duty according to law.
He directed the I-G to comply with the orders of the PSC, as contained in their letter of 5th May, 2009 (with Ref. No. PSC/CSP/01/11/295A), directing him to reinstate the Okoli into the Nigeria Police Force and to present for the recommendation of the commission, the I-G’s recommendation for the promotion of the applicant from 2013 to date, among others.
However, following non-compliance with the judgment, Okoli’s counsel, Mr Egbo, filed Forms 48 and 49 supported by affidavit before Justice Olajuwon, praying the court to convict and sentence the I-G for failure to obey court judgment delivered by Justice Okorowo on Oct. 21, 2011.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their application on the grounds that the I-G disregarded a memo of legal advice by the PSC advising the him to take cognisance and obey the court judgment.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Olajuwon held that Baba, whose attention severally and through different quarters has been brought to the orders of the court, mandating him to give effect to the directives of the PSC had not denied having the knowledge of the orders.
The judge said he had blatantly refused to carry out the order of the court.
“This court has bent backwards over and over again for the respondent.
“This Court even ordered that the Assistant Chief Registrar (Litigation) write to the respondent to inform him of the pendency of this matter, which he did and the proof of receipt of same in the office of the respondent is before this court.
