More than three decades after joining the Nigeria Police Force, a group of officers recruited in 1991 say they are approaching the end of their careers with a grievance that has refused to disappear: they believe their promotions have been delayed, their seniority has been undermined and, in some cases, their careers may end without the rank they say they earned.
The dispute has now taken on a sharper urgency because 2026 is the retirement year for many members of the 1991 intake.
What began as complaints about career stagnation has developed into a wider question about how the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission (PSC) manage promotion records, seniority, examinations, personnel files and retirement for officers who have spent virtually their entire working lives in the Force.
The officers have alleged that some promotions became due in 2024 and that required documentation, including Annual Performance Evaluation (APE) forms, had been completed. They say they nevertheless remain stranded in the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) structure as retirement approaches.
Their allegations remain allegations and have not been independently established from individual personnel files.
But a review of public records, PSC promotion guidelines, court judgments and subsequent reports shows that the dispute is more complicated — and potentially more significant — than a simple two-year delay.
A 35-year career ending without the expected rank?
One of the affected officers, who said he joined the Force in October 1991, described the frustration of spending decades without the progression he expected.
“I was recruited in October 1991 and since then, we have been wearing two stars instead of three stars, but the police refuse to promote us. We have been due for promotion since 2024. We have filled out our APE forms, but because of wickedness, they refuse to promote us.”
He added:
“We want to retire now, and we have been tagged with two stars for 35 years, yet the police did not give us our rank.”
Those remarks are important because Nigeria’s police rank structure distinguishes the ASP from the DSP: the official hierarchy places DSP above ASP I and II, while a published Police Service Commission document lists ASP I and ASP II separately.
The officers therefore appear to be contesting not merely an administrative delay but the career consequences of their placement within a hierarchical system where rank determines command authority and can affect remuneration and retirement status.
The first major revelation: the dispute may not be only about ASP-to-DSP promotion
The public narrative surrounding the controversy has largely centred on ASPs allegedly being denied promotion to DSP since 2024.
But a January 31, 2026 account of a protest by 1991 recruits in Ibadan provides a more detailed chronology.
An ASP II who spoke during that protest said members of the 1991 intake spent about 11 years and six months as constables before some were promoted to corporal in 2002. He said further stagnation followed at subsequent stages.
He also alleged that members of the 1991 group appeared before a promotion board in 2019 alongside Cadet Inspectors and Inspector Cadets, but received different effective promotion dates.
“While the Cadet Inspectors were given promotion dates backdated to 2009, our own promotions were dated 2020,” he said.
According to the same account, the group was later promoted to ASP II but was excluded when promotion to ASP I was conducted.
That distinction matters.
The PSC’s published promotion guideline states that an ASP II becomes eligible for ASP I after meeting prescribed conditions. For ASP I to DSP, the same guideline requires seniority, at least three years on the rank after confirmation as ASP I, satisfactory performance assessments, attendance at the relevant promotion course and success in prescribed examinations, with no pending disciplinary matter.
In other words, the claim that an officer is “due for DSP” cannot be established solely from the fact that he joined the Police Force in 1991.
The officer’s exact rank history, date of confirmation, examination record, performance assessments and promotion-board status would have to be checked.
That is precisely where the controversy demands documentation rather than assumption.
Yet there is evidence the 1991 officers have been raising the issue for years
The January protest was not the first public expression of dissatisfaction.
In September 2025, a separate group of senior ASPs alleged that officers who joined in 1991 had been bypassed in favour of younger colleagues from the 1993 intake.
The officers told PM News that they had been promoted in 2020 and confirmed in 2022, but complained that junior colleagues who reportedly became ASPs in 2022 and 2023 were being promoted to DSP ahead of them.
One officer appealed to the leadership of the Force to examine the records:
“We strongly believe that the Inspector General of Police … and the Chairman of the Police Service Commission … are not yet aware of this anomaly.”
Another complained that it would be unfair for senior ASPs to find themselves effectively subordinated to juniors because of alleged administrative errors.
The allegations were especially sensitive because seniority is fundamental to the functioning of a disciplined police organisation.
A police force cannot operate effectively if officers are uncertain about who has legitimate precedence, command authority or responsibility.
The PSC itself says overdue promotion complaints are part of its mandate
There is an important institutional fact at the centre of this controversy.
The Police Service Commission’s Promotion Department has two divisions: Promotion, and Appeals and Petitions.
Among its stated functions is the processing of complaints from police officers seeking redress for “long overdue promotion”, as well as grievances involving unjustified demotions and incorrect placement on the seniority staff list or nominal roll.
That means the alleged 1991 problem falls squarely within a function that the commission publicly acknowledges.
It also makes the absence of a clear public explanation more conspicuous.
If the officers failed the required promotion examination, the commission can say so.
If they lacked the required period on a particular rank, that can be established from personnel records.
If their APE reports were incomplete or unsatisfactory, the documents should show it.
If there was a pending disciplinary matter, the relevant administrative process should explain the delay.
And if an error occurred, the correction mechanism already exists.
The promotion numbers make the controversy harder to ignore
The PSC’s own records show that the promotion machinery was active on a very large scale.
On December 18, 2024, the commission approved the promotion of 8,053 senior police officers, including 5,829 ASPs to DSPs.
In March 2025, another 219 senior officers were promoted, including 170 ASPs to their next ranks, according to the PSC.
The 2025 promotion cycle also included scrutiny of pending disciplinary matters and appeals. In October 2025, the commission said such cases would receive timely attention so that officers found innocent would not be prevented from progressing in their careers.
That statement has direct relevance to the 1991 officers’ complaint.
The question is no longer whether the PSC has a mechanism to process promotions and appeals. It clearly does.
The critical question is what happened to the particular officers who say they have been left behind?
2026 brought more promotions — but did the 1991 files move?
The issue becomes even more striking when placed against developments this year.
In May 2026, Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Rilwan Disu approved the promotion of 17,952 junior police officersnationwide. The Nigeria Police Force said the exercise was designed to strengthen personnel welfare and boost morale, and the IGP described timely promotion as a critical part of human-resource management.
The exercise involved 17,714 constables promoted to corporal, 73 corporals to sergeant and 165 sergeants to inspector.
That is significant because it demonstrates that personnel advancement is being actively used as a morale and welfare instrument.
In July 2026, the PSC also approved the promotion of another 93 senior officers following written examinations and oral interviews. The group included 13 CPs elevated to AIG, 17 DCPs to CP, 28 ACPs to DCP and 33 CSPs to ACP.
The authorities can therefore point to continuing promotion activity across the Force.
The 1991 officers’ question is narrower but more painful:
Where does their case stand?
A March 2026 appeal adds another layer
In March, another public appeal emerged involving officers enlisted in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
The officers said they had gone through board promotion examinations in 2020 and were seeking further progression after what they described as delays in acting on their cases. They appealed directly to the PSC Chairman, retired DIG Hashimu Salihu Argungu.
Their statement urged the commission to ensure that appeals and petitions were treated with dispatch so that officers were not unjustly denied promotion because of delay.
This is important because it suggests that the controversy may not be limited to a single command, state or isolated personnel file.
The January protesters themselves described the issue as nationwide, saying officers from the 1991 intake across the federation were affected.
The evidence publicly available does not establish that every 1991 recruit has faced identical treatment.
But it does establish a recurring complaint from officers belonging to the same broad intake.
Retirement is now the critical deadline
The retirement issue makes the dispute urgent.
Section 18(8) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020 provides that a police officer serves for 35 years or until age 60, whichever comes earlier.
The PSC reaffirmed this framework in January 2025 when it approved the immediate retirement of senior officers who had exceeded 35 years of service or were above 60.
This means an officer recruited in October 1991 could reach 35 years of service around October 2026, subject to the precise legally recognised date of first appointment.
That point is crucial.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly treated the precise commencement date of police service as a potentially decisive issue in retirement disputes. In one National Industrial Court case involving police officers, the court considered whether service should be calculated from enlistment or from appointment as Force Entrants.
In another case, the National Industrial Court held that a senior police officer could not lawfully be compulsorily retired before reaching either 60 or 35 years of service where neither threshold had been reached, and awarded damages for the wrongful action.
The lesson is clear: the date on an officer’s personnel record can have real legal and financial consequences.
The financial question nobody should ignore
For an officer close to retirement, promotion is not merely about wearing an additional star.
The timing of a promotion can have implications for the officer’s substantive rank, career record and potentially retirement-related entitlements, subject to the applicable pension and public-service rules.
That is why a promotion dispute at the end of a 35-year career is fundamentally different from a promotion dispute involving an officer with another decade of service ahead.
A delayed promotion can potentially become an irreversible loss if an officer retires before the matter is settled.
That is the practical reason the 1991 officers want the process completed before they leave the Force.
But the officers must also prove eligibility
There is an equally important side to the story.
The PSC has publicly moved away from discretionary “special promotions”. In September 2024, Chairman Hashimu Argungu said special promotions had been abolished and that advancement should be based on merit, prescribed examinations and other requirements.
Therefore, years of service alone do not establish an automatic right to DSP.
The proper test should be documentary.
For each affected officer, the authorities should be able to establish:
First, the recognised date of appointment.
Second, the complete promotion history from constable through the commissioned ranks.
Third, the exact date of confirmation at each relevant rank.
Fourth, the APE/APER record required for the relevant promotion period.
Fifth, examination and promotion-course results.
Sixth, whether a pending disciplinary matter existed.
Seventh, whether the officer appeared on an approved promotion list — and, if not, the reason.
Eighth, whether the officer submitted an appeal and what decision was reached.
That audit would settle much of the controversy.
A warning sign for police morale
There is a larger public-safety issue here.
The Nigeria Police Force is being asked to recruit thousands of new personnel while simultaneously confronting long-running concerns over welfare, remuneration, career progression and morale.
The federal authorities have made police manpower expansion a major security priority. In August 2026, the PSC formally handed over 50,000 newly recruited constables to the Force for training.
But recruitment alone cannot create a professional police organisation.
Personnel have to believe that the institution rewards performance, respects seniority, processes promotions fairly and handles grievances promptly.
The alternative is dangerous.
An officer who believes his career has been unfairly frozen for years may become demoralised. A large number of such officers could create a deeper institutional problem.
And when morale weakens inside an institution responsible for combating kidnapping, armed robbery, terrorism, banditry, cult violence and other serious crimes, the consequences can eventually reach the public.
What the PSC and Police Force should do now
The controversy is now ripe for a transparent resolution.
The PSC’s published mandate already provides a route through its Appeals and Petitions division.
The commission does not necessarily need to disclose confidential personnel information publicly. What it should do is establish, through an internal audit, which members of the 1991 cohort met the relevant criteria and what happened to their cases.
If an officer was not qualified, the officer should receive a written reason.
If an officer qualified but was omitted, the administrative error should be corrected.
If the problem arose from inconsistent effective dates, the seniority record should be examined.
And where a promotion was delayed through no fault of the officer, the authorities should determine whether the governing rules permit an appropriate backdated or consequential remedy.
That would be far more credible than allowing the controversy to drift into retirement.
The unanswered question
The most troubling aspect of the affair is not that some officers are complaining.
It is that there appears to be enough conflicting evidence in the public domain to justify a formal review.
The officers say they have completed the paperwork.
The PSC says it handles long-overdue promotion appeals.
Thousands of ASPs were promoted to DSP in 2024.
The commission continued conducting promotion examinations and approving promotions in 2025 and 2026.
The IGP has publicly said timely promotion is important to morale and personnel management.
Yet officers from the 1991 intake say they are still waiting.
That is the contradiction the authorities now need to resolve.
For a group recruited when Nigeria was a very different country, after decades of policing an increasingly dangerous security environment, the prospect of retiring without what they believe is their rightful career progression is understandably bitter.
One officer put the grievance bluntly:
“There’s no reason for the delay! It’s just wickedness. We don’t have any query; we don’t have anything against our names.”
Another said:
“Most of us were retiring without taking that promotion. We have filled our APE, done everything, submitted our APE. Yet, they are not promoting us. They don’t promote us.”
And the most consequential appeal may be the simplest:
“They want everybody to retire without promotion from two stars.”
Those claims must still be tested against the official records.
But with the retirement clock now moving towards the end of 2026, one fact is indisputable: time is running out.
The Police Service Commission and Nigeria Police Force should therefore treat the 1991 officers’ complaints not as another routine personnel quarrel, but as a matter requiring an evidence-based, case-by-case determination before decades of service become a closed chapter.
Editorial clarification
Atlantic Post has not independently examined the personnel files, examination results, APE records or promotion-board documents of the affected officers. The allegations concerning delayed promotion, seniority and the absence of disciplinary impediments remain allegations until verified by the appropriate authorities. The distinction between ASP II, ASP I and DSP is particularly important: public reports about the cohort have described both ASP I promotion disputes and ASP-to-DSP grievances, while PSC guidelines impose specific requirements for each stage of advancement.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let's know your opinion.