By Levi I. Shaapera, Esq.*
Claims against the police in Nigeria have long been dominated by the practice of suing individual officers, such as the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Commissioners of Police (COP), Divisional Police Officers (DPOs), and sometimes even Investigating Police Officers (IPOs). This was possible because, before the advent of the Treasury Single Account (TSA), individual officers maintained accounts in commercial banks in their official capacities, making the execution of judgments against the police through them feasible.
However, the introduction of the TSA and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in CBN v. Ochife (2025) LCER-51001(SC) have highlighted the necessity of shifting from individual liability to institutional liability. This shift ensures that litigants direct their claims against the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and/or the Police Service Commission (PSC), which are the proper parties for enforcing claims against the police. The Supreme Court emphasised unequivocally that police officers, as mere employees, do not maintain separate accounts under the TSA policy and thus cannot be held individually liable for official actions.
Justice Abiru, JSC, underscored this in his lead judgment in CBN v. Ochife (2025) LCER-51001(SC) at Pp. 23–25, Paras G–C. In the words of the erudite jurist:
“The judgment debtors are (i) the Inspector General of Police, (ii) The Commissioner of Police, FCT, and (iii) the Officer in Charge, Intelligence Response Team, Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigeria Police Force. It is obvious… that the three judgment debtors are not Ministries, Departments, or Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government of Nigeria and cannot be referred to as MDAs to qualify as persons for whom the Appellant would maintain accounts under the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
Similarly, Justice Okoro, JSC, reinforced this view in his concurring judgment at P. 30, Paras A–F, thus:
“In this case, it is indubitable that the 2nd to 4th Respondents, who are the judgment debtors, are employees of the Nigeria Police Force, whose terms and conditions of service… are regulated by the Police Service Commission. In other words, the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission are agencies of the Federal Government whose accounts may be domiciled with the Appellant under the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy of the Federal Government, but definitely not the 2nd – 4th Respondents, who are mere employees.”
Jauro, JSC, identified the fundamental error in the litigant’s approach in CBN v. Ochife (2025) LCER-51001(SC), where the failure to include the NPF and PSC as parties resulted in an unenforceable garnishee order. At P. 33, Paras A–F, he stated:
“The 1st Respondent’s problem originated from his failure to make the Nigeria Police Force or the Police Service Commission parties to the suit where judgment for the sum of N50 million was obtained. Had he done that, he would probably have had a solid basis from which to proceed.”
Implications of CBN v. Ochife on Pending Cases
The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for pending cases and judgments yet to be executed, where claims have been structured against individual officers without involving the NPF and PSC. These implications go beyond execution through garnishee proceedings, as was the case in CBN v. Ochife. Even if one were to attempt execution through the attachment of police vehicles or properties, such efforts would likely be futile, as these assets also belong to the NPF, not individual officers.
Possible Solutions
The solution, as Jauro, JSC, rightly observed, lies in ensuring that the NPF or PSC is joined as a party to the suit. To avoid unenforceable judgments, litigants may take the following steps:
1. Amendment of Pleadings
Litigants with pending cases against individual officers, such as the IGP, COP, DPOs, or IPOs, should seek leave of court to amend their processes to include the NPF and PSC as defendants. This ensures that any judgment obtained can be seamlessly enforced. After all, the aim of every litigant is to enjoy the fruit of his victory in court. It is better to spend more time in litigation than to obtain a hasty but inexecutable judgment.
2. Fresh Suits Where Necessary
Where cases have already been concluded with unenforceable judgments against individual officers, litigants may consider instituting fresh suits properly directed at the NPF and PSC. Lawyers should carefully examine the cause of action to determine whether or not the claim is statute-barred before filing a new suit.
3. Garnishee Applications
Garnishee proceedings should only be initiated against accounts held by the NPF or PSC under the TSA policy rather than attempting to attach non-existent individual accounts. However, it must be reiterated that this is only possible if either the NPF or PSC was made a defendant in the original suit, as a party cannot be made a judgment debtor at the garnishee stage.
4. Awareness
Legal practitioners and lower courts should be sensitised to this shift in legal precedent to prevent misdirected claims. This can be achieved by sharing this vital information with colleagues and ensuring that lower courts properly apply the new framework for institutional liability over individual liability.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s pronouncements make it clear that the proper parties to be sued in claims involving the police are the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission. This shift to institutional liability ensures that monetary judgments can be executed effectively. Litigants and legal practitioners must take heed of this ruling to avoid the pitfalls of suing individual officers, thereby enhancing the efficiency of justice delivery in police-related claims.
________________________________________
Levi Shaapera, Esq. is a Legal Practitioner, Commentator on Legal and Public Affairs, and Founder & Editor-in-Chief, LawCompass. He can be reached via: 📞 09023499999 | ✉️ [email protected]
