The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has ordered officers to stop using academic, religious, professional and traditional titles in official correspondence. But a previous directive seeking details of officers’ advanced degrees raises a bigger question: how will the Force turn qualifications into better policing?
The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has ordered officers and men of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) to stop placing academic, religious, professional and traditional titles before their names in official correspondence, insisting that police ranks must take precedence.
The directive, reportedly contained in a police wireless message dated 14 October and obtained by SaharaReporters, could become another test of Disu’s drive to enforce discipline across the Force.
But beyond the argument over titles, the order raises a more consequential question about police professionalism in Nigeria: is the institution doing enough to distinguish between the recognition of personal achievements and the authority required to command a police officer?
The distinction matters in an organisation where hierarchy determines who gives orders, who carries them out and who answers when things go wrong.
Why the IGP Has Moved Against Titles
The wireless message, marked “Order and Directives”, was circulated to senior police officers, departments, units and formations, according to the report.
It expressed displeasure over what the police leadership described as the “outrageous use” of academic, traditional, religious, professional and other appellations in official communications.
The message reportedly cited an example of an officer identified as:
“Dr ACP Bayo Kanayo Audu PSC MMA (Sarkin Yaki).”
The IGP directed personnel to refrain from placing titles other than their official police ranks before their names in official correspondence.
The directive cited the Public Service Rules 2021, the Police Act 2020 and Force Order 266, arguing that the practice contravened the applicable rules and portrayed the Force negatively.
It also instructed officers to comply with Force Orders 37 and 103, which the reported message associates with procedures for accepting chieftaincy titles and regulating the use of appellations.
The order further directed police authorities to make the issue the subject of lectures within the Force, with recipients instructed to treat it as a matter of utmost importance and ensure strict compliance.
The immediate objective appears to be administrative consistency. Official correspondence should identify an officer by the rank relevant to the command structure rather than by a collection of academic distinctions, honours or community titles.
The Nigeria Police Force itself explains that its command structure is organised around police ranks, with orders flowing through the chain of command.
That principle is important. A police officer’s authority to direct an operation comes from the office held, not from a doctorate, religious position or traditional honour.
Yet establishing that principle is only the beginning of the reform question.
The Puzzle: Degrees Sought, Titles Restricted
There is a revealing development that gives the latest directive a wider context.
On 14 September 2026, Disu reportedly directed commands and formations to submit details of serving inspectors and rank-and-file personnel holding doctorate degrees, master’s degrees and Bachelor of Laws qualifications.
The request, which was reported by The Metro on 16 September, required the submission of the officers’ qualifications alongside their posting signals.
The September request and the October directive are not necessarily contradictory.
One concerns identifying officers’ educational qualifications. The other concerns how personnel present themselves in official correspondence. The police can legitimately record qualifications while standardising how ranks and names appear in formal documents.
But together, the two developments raise an important question: what happens to the qualifications after the Force records them?
A doctorate in criminology, a master’s degree in cybersecurity or a law degree could, where verified and relevant, help inform specialist training, assignments or professional development.
The value of such qualifications lies not in the letters attached to an officer’s name but in whether the knowledge improves investigations, evidence handling, intelligence analysis, case preparation and the treatment of citizens.
The Force has not, in the material reviewed for this report, publicly explained how the September exercise will inform deployment, career progression or specialist capacity.
Without that explanation, the public cannot tell whether the exercise is intended to build a more skilled police service or simply to improve the administration of personnel records.
The IGP’s latest directive presents an opportunity to address that question.
What the Rules Need to Clarify
The circular reportedly invokes three separate sources of authority: the Public Service Rules 2021, the Police Act 2020 and Force Order 266.
These should not be treated as interchangeable.
The Public Service Rules provide the federal public-service administrative framework, while the Police Act establishes the statutory framework for the Nigeria Police Force. The government publishes the 2021 Public Service Rules, and an official copy of the Police Act is also publicly available.
Force Orders, meanwhile, form part of the Force’s internal regulatory framework. Academic research on the NPF describes them as standing orders dealing with a wide range of administrative and operational matters.
However, Atlantic Post could not independently verify the full text of Force Order 266, or establish from the publicly accessible material reviewed the precise provisions of the cited rules that govern every category of title covered by the directive.
That does not establish that the directive is invalid. It does mean the legal basis deserves clearer public explanation.
The police should publish or identify the relevant provisions and distinguish between titles used before an officer’s name, qualifications recorded in personnel files, post-nominal designations and traditional honours accepted under approved procedures.
Such clarification would reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation across commands and formations.
It would also help officers understand exactly what is prohibited in official correspondence, rather than leaving them to interpret a broad directive through internal lectures alone.
Crucially, the reported instruction concerns official correspondence. It should not automatically be interpreted as a declaration that officers have lost their academic qualifications or that possessing a traditional or religious title is, in itself, unlawful.
The substance of the order is about how officers are identified in official communications and the rules governing the use of appellations.
Professionalism Is More Than How an Officer Signs a Memo
The IGP is entitled to insist on discipline and consistency within the Force. The problem arises when administrative compliance is mistaken for institutional reform.
A standardised memo may look more professional. It cannot, by itself, improve the quality of a criminal investigation, stop unlawful detention or ensure that a complaint against an officer receives a fair hearing.
The public ultimately judges the police by what happens when it seeks help, reports a crime or encounters an officer exercising state authority.
Does a reported offence receive a credible investigation? Are suspects treated lawfully? Are complaints handled transparently? Can citizens identify the officers they encounter and hold them accountable for misconduct?
These are the practical tests of policing.
Disu has also pursued measures aimed at tightening professional standards. In May 2026, the police announced that officers on regular duty should wear visible name tags, with an exception for personnel engaged in undercover operations. The Force presented the measure as part of efforts to strengthen accountability and public trust.
Both measures speak to institutional presentation and accountability. But their success depends on implementation.
A visible name tag is useful only when complaints can be investigated. A strict correspondence format is useful only when discipline is applied fairly and consistently.
Likewise, identifying officers with advanced degrees is useful only if the Force can explain how their knowledge contributes to better policing.
The issue is not whether rules should exist. It is whether the institution measures their impact on performance.
The Traditional Title Question
The reference to chieftaincy titles adds a distinctly Nigerian dimension to the directive.
Traditional honours can carry substantial cultural and community significance. Religious and professional designations can also reflect an individual’s standing outside official service.
The challenge for a disciplined institution is to recognise the difference between private or community identity and official authority.
An officer may possess qualifications or enjoy recognition within a community without those distinctions conferring additional powers within the police hierarchy.
The reported reference to Force Orders 37 and 103 suggests the directive also seeks to reinforce procedures governing the acceptance and use of such titles.
For that reason, the police should clarify whether its concern is the placement of appellations in official correspondence, the acceptance of certain honours without approval, or both.
Clear rules would help avoid the impression that a formatting directive amounts to a blanket rejection of officers’ achievements or cultural identities.
The objective should be a uniform system that strengthens command discipline without creating confusion about what the rules actually prohibit.
What the Police Should Do Next
The latest order gives Force Headquarters an opportunity to connect administrative discipline with measurable professional standards.
First, it should make the directive and its relevant legal provisions readily accessible to personnel. Officers should know which titles are prohibited in memos, what exceptions apply and how approved qualifications are to be recorded.
Second, the Force should explain the purpose of its September exercise to identify officers with advanced degrees. If the information is intended to support specialist training, deployment or organisational planning, those goals should be made clear.
Third, implementation should be consistent. Compliance with correspondence rules should not become a substitute for examining more consequential questions about operational competence, misconduct, investigations and accountability.
Finally, the police leadership should assess whether these administrative changes contribute to measurable improvements in the service delivered to Nigerians.
There is a sound principle behind the title ban: no academic distinction or traditional honour should place an officer above the established chain of command.
But there is an equally important principle on the other side. An institution that gathers evidence of its personnel’s qualifications should be able to explain how those qualifications strengthen its work.
The ultimate test of police professionalism is not whether an officer signs a memo as “ACP” rather than “Dr ACP”. It is whether the officer uses the authority of that rank competently, lawfully and in the public interest.
Disu can standardise official correspondence. The more demanding task is to ensure that the discipline visible on paper is matched by professionalism in the field.
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.