The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Abuja has delivered a landmark judgment restricting police officers who are lawyers but not appointed as legal officers to only prosecuting criminal cases. They are barred from performing any other legal practitioner functions for the Nigeria Police Force.
Court's Declaration on Police Lawyers
Justice Olufunke Anuwe declared in her judgment delivered on Friday that police officers who are lawyers but have not been appointed or upgraded as legal officers are in breach of Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023. The judge stated that these officers cannot function or perform the duties of legal officers for their employer, except for the prosecution of criminal cases.
Orders for Deployment and Compliance
The judge also ordered the Nigeria Police Force, the Police Service Commission (PSC), and the Inspector-General of Police to deploy police officers who are legal practitioners to every police division in Nigeria. This deployment aims to assist with the enforcement of human rights in policing at the divisional level. Additionally, citing Section 66(3) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, the court ordered that at least one police officer qualified to practice as a legal practitioner must be deployed in every division, in compliance with the Legal Practitioners Act.
Suit Background and Parties
The orders were issued following a suit instituted in September 2025 by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). The NBA sued the Police Service Commission, the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police (Legal, Force Headquarters, Abuja), the Director of Directorate of Legal Services, Force Headquarters, Abuja, Ohiozoba Ehiede, and the Attorney General of the Federation. The NBA, through its lawyer Olukunle Edun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, prayed that officers trained in the legal profession be upgraded to the rank of Superintendent of Police and appointed as legal officers. They also sought the deployment of lawyers in all police divisions.
Defense Arguments and Court's Ruling
Opposing the suit, the police force, the IGP, and the Commissioner of Police argued that promotion or upgrade of the affected officers is not automatic but depends on vacancy availability. The PSC stated that police officers who became lawyers while in service were appointed as General Duty Officers, not legal officers. It added that since some did not take permission to further their education, the commission could not be compelled to promote them as they did not follow due process. The PSC also claimed it had no knowledge of the professional qualifications acquired by the affected officers.
Upon hearing submissions, the judge ruled that the court lacked the power to promote the officers and could not order the PSC to promote officers who did not follow due procedure as outlined in public service rules. However, the judge restrained all police officers not upgraded or appointed as legal officers from carrying out the functions and responsibilities of legal officers for the force.
Justification for the Rules
Previous cases have offered insights into the reasoning behind the rules that generally bar salaried lawyers from representing their organisations in court. The rules ensure professional independence, allowing lawyers to provide objective advice without internal pressure. They also prevent in-house corporate lawyers from operating like external solicitors, which would otherwise deprive independent law firms of legal work. The professional rules provide an exception to Rule 8(1), allowing lawyers employed as legal officers in a government department to take up cases in court on behalf of their employers.
