Atlantic Post

Officers in Cross River and Akwa Ibom say approved postings are being held for up to six months over manpower shortages. The deeper threat is not only to police welfare, but to command accountability and public safety.

An approved police transfer is supposed to settle an administrative question: where an officer will serve next.

But allegations emerging from Cross River and Akwa Ibom suggest that, for some junior officers, a transfer signal from police authorities may be only the beginning of another struggle.

Officers in the two states allege that some Divisional Police Officers, or DPOs, are refusing to release personnel who have received official transfer signals, citing manpower shortages in their divisions.

Some officers reportedly have been waiting for as long as six months.

The allegations, published by SaharaReporters on October 4, 2026, centre on a deceptively simple question: what happens when a transfer has been approved at a higher level but the officer cannot physically leave the division?

That question goes beyond personnel welfare.

It touches the integrity of the Nigeria Police Force’s chain of command.

It also raises a public-safety issue that is easy to miss. If a police division is so short of personnel that releasing one officer becomes impossible, the problem may not be the transfer itself. The deeper problem may be how police manpower is being distributed, monitored and managed.

Six Months in Limbo

The officers who spoke to SaharaReporters did so anonymously, citing fear of intimidation or sanctions.

They alleged that the practice is particularly pronounced in Calabar and Uyo, but said similar complaints have emerged from other formations.

In Cross River, the divisions named by the sources include Calabar, Ekori, Ogoja, Ikom and Abi.

In Akwa Ibom, they identified Oron, Ikot Ekpene and Eket.

The officers claimed that the problem had persisted since January 2026, with some transfers dating back to 2025 allegedly still unresolved.

According to them, as many as 50 personnel may have been affected, although that figure has not been independently verified. 

One officer described the situation as “getting out of hand”.

“DPOs in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states are blocking junior officers’ transfers and the Commissioners of Police are doing nothing about it. Junior officers are treated like dogs,” the officer said.

“How can someone work their transfer to a certain office and the DPO or officer in charge would refuse to release them to resume work in their new office? It’s getting out of hand. Are we not public servants, and is it not our right to work wherever we desire?”

Another officer said:

“But it is just wickedness against junior officers. They should tell us the reason why they don’t let officers leave. Are we not public servants? Don’t we have the right to work anywhere?”

The language is angry. The underlying grievance is more precise.

The officers are not simply demanding the freedom to choose their workplaces.

They are challenging what they say is an informal power to prevent an already approved transfer from being implemented.

That distinction matters.

The Alleged Rule That Nobody Can Point To

According to the officers, they have been told that they cannot leave their current divisions until replacements are posted.

One source described this as a “new policy”.

But the same source claimed that the higher authorities were not aware of it.

“That’s the new policy they’re practising and the authority isn’t aware of it,” the source said.

That allegation deserves particular scrutiny.

The Nigeria Police Act gives the Inspector-General of Police full command and operational control over the Force. It also assigns the IGP responsibility for determining police manpower distribution and for the physical, mental and psychological wellbeing and welfare of police personnel. 

State Commissioners of Police have command and control over police in their respective commands and perform duties delegated by the IGP. 

The Act also provides for the delegation of powers down the police structure, including to zones, state commands, area commands, divisions and police posts. 

That means manpower concerns are clearly a legitimate operational consideration.

A DPO cannot be expected to ignore the reality that removing personnel from a division may leave the area dangerously understaffed.

But there is a crucial difference between raising a manpower problem through the command structure and creating an informal veto over an approved personnel decision.

Atlantic Post’s review of the publicly accessible Police Act provisions found no provision expressly giving a DPO an independent power to cancel or indefinitely suspend an approved transfer from Force Headquarters.

The Act does provide for standing orders governing operational control, and states that such orders are binding on police officers and must be formally published. 

That makes the allegation of an unwritten “new policy” particularly important.

If such a policy exists, where is the written order?

Who issued it?

Does it apply nationally, by zone or only within individual commands?

For how long can an officer’s departure legally be delayed?

Who reviews the decision?

And who is responsible if the receiving formation is left without the officer it was supposed to receive?

Those are administrative questions the police hierarchy should be able to answer from records rather than through competing anonymous accounts.

The Manpower Defence Is Not Entirely Implausible

There is one part of the officers’ account that cannot simply be dismissed.

Nigeria’s police manpower problem is real enough for the Federal Government and Police Service Commission to have launched a nationwide recruitment exercise for 50,000 constables.

The PSC said more than 400,000 applications had been received by January 2026. The exercise was explicitly presented as a way of expanding the manpower base of the Nigeria Police Force. 

The Ministry of Police Affairs has also described the recruitment drive as an effort to address longstanding manpower gaps while improving the operational capacity of the Force. 

So a DPO complaining that a division cannot afford to lose an officer is not automatically making an unreasonable argument.

The problem begins when a staffing shortage becomes a permanent justification for stopping personnel movement.

There is a danger in treating every individual officer as indispensable to a particular division.

It can freeze the system.

An officer cannot be released because there is no replacement.

A replacement cannot be posted because vacancies remain unresolved.

The vacancy remains unresolved because the existing officer cannot leave.

The result is an administrative circle in which the “temporary” exception becomes the permanent reality.

The Public Safety Cost

The public sees a personnel dispute.

The consequences may be much wider.

Research published in 2026 found that police staffing shortages are associated with slower response times, higher crime risks, weaker morale and increased burnout. Separate research has found staffing levels to be one of the strongest factors influencing police response times. 

A Nigerian study involving 528 police personnel also found that long working hours, tension and poor logistics contributed to frustration, exhaustion and burnout and affected service delivery. 

That matters in Cross River and Akwa Ibom.

When an officer remains in a division because a replacement has not arrived, another division may be waiting for that officer.

When dozens of transfers are delayed, the Force risks locking manpower in formations according to local administrative pressure rather than broader operational need.

And when officers who sought transfers for health, transport or family reasons remain in difficult circumstances for months, the welfare consequences can eventually become operational consequences.

A tired, frustrated or distracted officer is not operating in a vacuum.

Policing is a safety-critical profession.

The quality of decisions made during emergencies depends partly on the readiness of the people making them.

Why Welfare Is Part of Security

The affected officers said some transfers were sought because of transport difficulties, health concerns or family circumstances.

One officer was reportedly transferred to a nearby station because of transportation problems but has allegedly remained at the original station for six months.

“We might have pressing issues. Like one of the affected officers, the officer is having transportation issues; that was why the officer worked their transfer to a nearby police station, but the officer has not been released for six months now,” a source said.

The sources also raised health-related concerns.

“Police don’t joke with the welfare of personnel, especially those on sick leave or having challenges with health,” one source said.

“So the personnel have to look for a nearby police station that will relieve him or her of the stress of health risk and settle down.”

That argument sits uneasily beside the Police Act.

The law expressly places responsibility for the wellbeing and welfare of police personnel on the Inspector-General. 

And the Federal Government itself has spent much of 2026 announcing measures to improve police welfare, including a review of allowances and outstanding benefits. 

The stated reform agenda is therefore not just about putting more policemen on the road.

It is also about creating a professional institution in which personnel decisions are predictable, accountable and properly recorded.

A Command Problem Disguised as a Transfer Problem

This is where the dispute becomes more revealing.

The Nigeria Police Act says its objectives include accountability, transparency, fairness, justice, equity, professionalism and protection of fundamental rights. It also says the Force is responsible for public safety, public order and the protection of lives and property. 

The Federal Government said in April that the newly gazetted police regulations were intended to strengthen accountability, professionalism, service delivery and human-rights standards across the Force. 

The timing is significant.

A modern police institution cannot simultaneously insist on formal command structures while allowing personnel decisions to become dependent on undocumented local practices.

That does not mean every transfer must be implemented immediately.

There will be operational circumstances in which a transfer needs to be delayed.

But a delay should generate a record.

There should be a reason.

There should be an approving authority.

There should be a time limit.

And there should be a route for appeal.

Without those safeguards, a legitimate manpower decision can quietly become personal discretion.

The Officers’ “Right to Work Anywhere” Needs a Fact Check

There is one point on which the officers’ language should be narrowed.

A police officer does not have an unrestricted right to choose any location in which to serve. Police work is built around command, deployment and operational necessity.

The stronger argument is not that an officer can choose a posting simply because they want it.

It is that once the competent police authority has approved a transfer, any decision to stop implementation should have a lawful and transparent basis.

That is a much harder question for the authorities to avoid.

The Precedent From Ebonyi

The officers pointed to an earlier case involving a female police corporal in Ebonyi State whose inter-state transfer to Ogun was reportedly approved on compassionate grounds by the IGP but allegedly remained unimplemented because of manpower concerns.

A September 2026 report described the corporal as having remained in Ebonyi despite the reported approval, prompting questions over how an IGP-approved transfer was being implemented at command level. 

The Cross River and Akwa Ibom officers said publicity around that case eventually resulted in the corporal’s release.

Whether publicity should be necessary to make an approved administrative decision effective is itself part of the problem.

A police personnel system that works properly should not need media exposure before an officer can obtain an administrative remedy.

The Complaint Channel Already Exists

There is also a formal institutional route that makes the current allegations more difficult to ignore.

The Police Service Commission says its Police Discipline Department includes an Appeals, Petitions and Public Complaints division. Its responsibilities include handling appeals and petitions and implementing policies intended to improve discipline and efficiency in the Nigeria Police Force. 

Earlier PSC records also expressly listed the processing of appeals and petitions concerning posting and transfer of police personnel among its responsibilities. 

The structure therefore exists for an officer who believes a personnel decision has been wrongly handled.

The bigger question is whether junior officers feel safe enough to use it.

That is why anonymity matters.

An allegation made anonymously should not automatically be accepted as fact.

But in a disciplined organisation, anonymous allegations should also not be dismissed merely because the complainants fear consequences from the people they are accusing.

What the Police Should Establish

There are several straightforward questions for the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission.

How many transfer signals issued to Cross River and Akwa Ibom formations since January 2026 remain unimplemented?

How many were delayed because of manpower?

Who authorised each delay?

Was Force Headquarters notified?

Were replacement personnel requested?

Were the affected officers formally informed in writing?

Were the delays entered into personnel records?

And is there a published Force policy requiring a replacement to arrive before a transferred officer can leave?

Those questions can be answered through documents.

They do not require speculation.

They also provide the police with an opportunity to distinguish legitimate operational decisions from arbitrary obstruction.

A Simple Reform Could End the Argument

The Force could create a central electronic transfer tracker showing four basic stages: approved, released, received and completed.

Where a command cannot release an officer because of operational necessity, the reason should be entered into the system, with the approving authority and a review date.

If the receiving formation is also understaffed, the problem becomes visible at Force Headquarters rather than being trapped between two local commands.

The system would also protect DPOs.

A DPO who genuinely faces an emergency manpower shortage would have a documented mechanism for seeking temporary relief.

An officer with a legitimate welfare concern would have a documented appeal.

And the IGP would have a national picture of where manpower is actually getting stuck.

The Question Behind the Question

Cross River’s current Commissioner of Police, CP Ajo Geoffrey Ordue, has publicly emphasised proactive and intelligence-led policing, while also warning officers against human-rights abuses and misconduct. 

Akwa Ibom Commissioner of Police CP Baba Mohammed Azare has similarly been publicly associated with intelligence-led policing and operational readiness. 

That makes the allegations worth addressing directly rather than allowing them to remain an internal rumour.

The officers are asking: Must a replacement arrive before an approved transfer can take effect?

The police hierarchy should answer with something stronger than silence.

Because the real issue is bigger than whether a constable, inspector or other junior officer spends another six months at one station.

It is whether an administrative order means what it says.

If a transfer approved through the police hierarchy can be held indefinitely at divisional level without a clear written authority, then the Force has a command problem.

And if the answer is that manpower shortages make such delays necessary, then the public deserves to know why the system cannot supply the replacements needed to maintain adequate policing.

At the centre of this dispute is an uncomfortable truth.

A police force short of personnel cannot afford to waste the personnel it already has through a transfer system nobody can clearly explain.

SaharaReporters reported that the Cross River command’s spokesperson, ASP Sunday Eitokpah Akata, told officers who spoke anonymously to approach the command’s Admin Officer with their transfer signals for redress. Akwa Ibom spokesperson DSP Timfon John had not responded when the report was filed. 

That provides an immediate administrative route.

What remains is whether the police hierarchy will use it to establish where the transfer signals are, why they are being held and who has the authority to release them.