The National Industrial Court on Monday issued an order directing the Police Service Commission (PSC) to provide compensation in the amount of N40 million to retired AIG Mbu Joseph Mbu as general damages. The court, presided over by Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae, made this ruling in response to Mbu's claim of being unlawfully retired before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 60. The court declared the retirement null and void, affirming Mbu's status as an officer of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) until he reached the age of 60 on May 10, 2018.
In addition to the monetary compensation, the court ordered the defendant to pay Mbu his salaries, allowances, and entitlements from the date of his premature retirement, July 2, 2016, until his expected retirement on May 10, 2018. The court further mandated the payment of N750,000 to cover the cost of the suit. Failure to comply with the court's orders within 30 days would result in a 10 percent annual interest.
However, the court declined Mbu's request for promotion to the position of a DIG (Deputy Inspector General) and reinstatement, as his retirement age had already been reached by the time the case was pending.
The case originated from Mbu's allegation of compulsory retirement on July 2, 2016, while serving as the commandant of the Police Staff College. He argued that he had not yet reached the mandatory retirement age of 60 and had not completed 35 years of service at the time of his retirement. Mbu sought the court's invalidation of his retirement, claiming that he had not received a statutory notice.
The defendant, in its response, contended that Mbu was not retired through a press release but rather through a ceremonial event. The defendant also argued that promotion within the force is not automatic and that Mbu did not meet the necessary requirements for promotion. The reorganization within the NPF during the period of Mbu's retirement was deemed to have followed due process, affecting several individuals, not solely Mbu.
Despite the defendant's failure to appear in court to present its defense, the judge stated that the burden of proof still rested on the claimant. The court emphasized that pleadings should not be equated with evidence and noted that the defendant's absence did not absolve the claimant of substantiating his case. The judge concluded that since the claimant had successfully proven his case with credible evidence, independent of the defendant's weakness, he was entitled to certain reliefs sought.
