Atlantic Post

Four signals move 60 officers from Akwa Ibom and 19 from Kwara as affected personnel question relocation costs, due process and the basis for the redeployments

The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps has redeployed 79 officers between Akwa Ibom, Kwara and other state commands, but the decision has opened a wider dispute over one question: who is expected to bear the cost when a government security officer is ordered to relocate hundreds of kilometres without financial benefits?

The redeployments were conveyed through four signals approved by NSCDC Commandant-General Professor Ahmed Abubakar Audi and signed on his behalf by Musa Farouk B.K.

Three signals — 1083 AKWA-CL, 1084 AKWA-CL and 1085 AKWA — moved 60 officers out of the Akwa Ibom State Command.

A fourth signal, 1086, transferred 19 officers from the Kwara State Command to Akwa Ibom.

The personnel affected include officers from the ranks of Assistant Superintendent of Corps I, Superintendent of Corps, Deputy Superintendent of Corps, Chief Superintendent of Corps, Assistant Commandant of Corps and Deputy Commandant of Corps.

Their new postings include Niger, Ekiti, Katsina, Bauchi, Jigawa, Gombe, Kaduna, Taraba, Adamawa, Enugu, Kebbi, Plateau, Osun, Nasarawa, Imo, Kwara, Kogi, Ebonyi, Anambra, Abia, Bayelsa, Edo, Sokoto, Kano and Yobe.

The signals reportedly took immediate effect and stated that the movement carried no financial benefits.

That wording is now at the centre of the dispute.

The question behind the transfers

Several affected officers told SaharaReporters that they did not request the redeployments and questioned how they were expected to finance transport, temporary accommodation and relocation from their salaries.

One officer alleged that the movement originated from the administration department following what the officer described as the intervention of Akwa Ibom State Commandant Geraldine Sixtus Abetianbe.

“The above signal emanates from administration department through the instigation of Akwa Ibom State Command, Commandant Geraldine Sixtus,” the officer alleged.

The allegation has not been independently established, and the officer’s account represents the position of an affected member of staff.

The more consequential issue, though, is the financial treatment attached to the movement.

“According to the Public Service Rules, a transfer that is not requested must be accompanied by a 28 days allowance which covers transportation and accommodation. But this particular transfer doesn’t carry such financial benefits,” the officer said.

A review of the 2021 Federal Government Public Service Rules, the current edition, confirms that the rules contain provisions covering precisely these forms of expenditure.

Rule 140106 states that officers posted or transferred to a new station different from their city or town of domicile are entitled to transport fare for themselves, their spouse and up to four children. It also provides for hotel accommodation for the first 28 days, or an allowance in lieu of such accommodation, subject to the applicable circular. 

The rules also provide for resettlement allowance.

Under Rule 140134, resettlement allowance is payable where an officer is posted or transferred and the officer’s living condition is disturbed, including compensation for qualifying out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the transfer.

Rule 140136 puts the resettlement allowance at 2 per cent of the officer’s annual total emolument. 

There is also an important qualification.

Rule 140137 says an officer whose transfer is made at the officer’s own request is entitled to transport allowance but not resettlement allowance. 

That distinction makes the circumstances surrounding the 79 movements significant.

If the officers did not request the transfers, the question becomes why the four signals expressly state that no financial benefits are attached.

The available documents and public statements examined by Atlantic Post do not provide a clear explanation from NSCDC National Headquarters for that wording.

The 28-day issue is real, but the rule numbers matter

There is another important detail in the dispute.

The earlier report referred to Rules 130132 to 130135 of the Public Service Rules when discussing resettlement and transfer allowances.

Those rule numbers belong to the older 2008 edition.

The 2021 revised Public Service Rules, which are the extant federal rules, place the relevant provisions under Chapter 14 and Rules 140106, 140134, 140135, 140136 and 140137. The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation publishes the revised 2021 rules, while the National Industrial Court has cited the same provisions in a recent case involving transfer-related allowances. 

That does not remove the underlying concern raised by the personnel.

It makes the legal question more precise.

The issue is not whether the Public Service Rules recognise transfer-related financial obligations. They do.

The question is whether each of these 79 officers falls within the circumstances for which those benefits are payable, and whether any valid NSCDC directive or condition of service modifies their application in this particular redeployment.

What happens if the transfer is disciplinary?

The NSCDC Akwa Ibom spokesperson, Ekerette Friday, introduced another possibility.

He acknowledged seeing the transfer signals and the provision stating that no financial benefits would be paid, but said he did not know why that decision was made.

“I don’t know precisely why that is so. I think that should be above my pay grade,” he said.

He also said that the Public Service Rules govern NSCDC personnel alongside other applicable directives.

Ekerette added that employers have a duty of care when officers are moved substantial distances.

“When officers are transferred from one place to another, for instance, if someone is transferred a distance of as much as 1,000 kilometree… Every organisation has a duty of care towards that officer,” he said.

He suggested that transfers without certain financial benefits could arise where the movement was requested by an individual or imposed as part of disciplinary action.

“Because one of the penalties that can arise from a disciplinary panel is transfer,” he said.

The affected officers, on the other hand, insist that no such disciplinary process preceded their redeployment.

“There was no offence committed by these officers. I am among. No query was issued, no panel was set to have made recommendations including transfer as punitive measure,” one officer alleged.

That claim has not been independently established from NSCDC disciplinary records.

It is nonetheless important because the distinction between an ordinary administrative transfer and a disciplinary measure could materially affect how the Corps explains its decision.

Court records confirm that NSCDC personnel are subject to statutory employment protections and that the Public Service Rules and the Corps’ Conditions of Service govern disciplinary procedures. In a case involving an NSCDC employee, the National Industrial Court stressed the importance of following the applicable disciplinary procedure. 

A command structure that has changed

The officers have also raised a separate operational question: whether increasingly long-distance postings are necessary within the Corps’ modern command structure.

The NSCDC currently operates 18 zonal commands covering the 36 states and the FCT. Akwa Ibom and Cross River, for example, are grouped under Zone 15, while Sokoto, Kebbi and Zamfara are under Zone 10 and Borno and Yobe under Zone 18. 

That structure does not, by itself, prevent the national headquarters from deploying personnel across zones.

It does mean that the operational rationale for moving officers over very long distances can reasonably be examined, particularly where transfers involve areas with sharply different security environments.

Some affected officers pointed specifically to postings involving Sokoto, Kebbi, Gombe, Katsina, Jigawa and Yobe.

“Because of the insecurity in the Northeast and Northwestern Nigeria, travelling by road has become a nightmare. Officers with their income cannot afford flight tickets,” one officer said.

Another questioned whether an officer unfamiliar with the language, terrain and local operating environment could be deployed effectively to a new area without adequate preparation.

“An officer that does not understand the indigenous language, the terrain and coupled with insurgency, banditry in the North, how can he function effectively?” the officer asked.

Those concerns are arguments from the affected personnel rather than established evidence that any particular posting would compromise operations.

The NSCDC itself describes state commands as the level closest to the grassroots, responsible for operations, intelligence gathering, logistics, disaster management and community-based engagement. 

Claims of selective targeting

Some personnel have gone beyond the issue of allowances.

They allege that the transfers disproportionately affect officers from Akwa Ibom who have spent more than 15 years in the command.

“This is a targeted victimization of officers of Akwa Ibom origin,” one officer alleged.

The allegation has not been independently substantiated.

The officers argue that the movement does not resemble a broad nationwide rotation because they say the names of selected personnel were picked from a larger pool of officers with long service in the command.

That assertion raises a question that the transfer signals alone cannot answer:

What criteria were used to select the 60 officers moved out of Akwa Ibom?

Were the officers selected according to years of service, rank, operational need, disciplinary status, staffing gaps, professional specialty or another administrative criterion?

Neither the affected personnel nor the Akwa Ibom command spokesperson has publicly supplied the answer.

Why the numbers deserve scrutiny

The arithmetic of the exercise is straightforward but revealing.

Sixty officers are being moved out of Akwa Ibom while 19 are being moved from Kwara into Akwa Ibom.

That is a net reduction of 41 personnel from the Akwa Ibom command based on the four signals described in the documents.

Yet the destinations of the 60 officers are widely dispersed.

The postings cover southern, central and northern commands, including states separated from Akwa Ibom by hundreds of kilometres.

The pattern therefore looks different from a simple neighbouring-state staff adjustment.

It raises three separate administrative questions.

First, what operational vacancies or manpower requirements triggered the transfers?

Second, what criteria were used to select individual officers?

Third, why do the signals state that the movements carry no financial benefits despite the provisions of the 2021 Public Service Rules governing transport, temporary accommodation and resettlement?

Until those questions are answered, the dispute is likely to remain less about the authority to transfer officers and more about the conditions under which that authority is being exercised.

A financial burden hidden inside an administrative order

The practical problem for the affected personnel is immediate.

A transfer to another state is not simply a change of office address.

It can involve transport, temporary accommodation, movement of personal belongings, disruption of family arrangements and the cost of establishing a new base.

The 2021 PSR recognises that burden through separate provisions for transport, first-28-day accommodation and resettlement.

The National Industrial Court has also recently treated such transfer-related allowances as statutory entitlements where the relevant conditions are met. In Charlene C. Makai v Nigerian Christian Pilgrim Commission, the court cited Rules 140104, 140106, 140134 and 140136 and noted that the rules provide for transport, first-28-day accommodation and resettlement allowances. 

That does not automatically determine the entitlement of the 79 NSCDC personnel.

Their exact circumstances, domiciles, transfer status, the applicable circulars and any relevant NSCDC-specific conditions of service would still need to be established.

But it does make the blanket wording “no financial benefits” a matter requiring a clear administrative explanation.

The unresolved issue at National Headquarters

Professor Ahmed Abubakar Audi remains the NSCDC Commandant-General after President Bola Tinubu renewed his appointment for another five-year term beginning February 27, 2026. 

The transfer signals were approved under his administration.

The Corps has not, in the material publicly available at the time of this report, explained why the four signals exclude financial benefits or whether National Headquarters considers the movements administrative, rotational or disciplinary.

That leaves an evidentiary gap.

The affected officers have provided allegations.

The Akwa Ibom command has confirmed seeing the signals but says it does not know the reason for the financial exclusion.

The Public Service Rules provide a framework for transfer-related payments.

What is missing is the document or directive that connects the specific 79 transfers to the decision to withhold those benefits.

That is now the central question.

The issue is not simply whether NSCDC has the power to move its personnel.

It is whether the reason for the movement, the selection of the officers and the financial conditions attached to the orders have been applied in accordance with the rules governing the Corps.

Until National Headquarters provides that explanation, the phrase “no financial benefits” will continue to sit uneasily beside the transfer provisions in the government’s own 2021 Public Service Rules.

---

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