By Fatai Abiodun Esq
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
In Nigeria, the growing practice of extending the tenure of retiring public officers through administrative arrangements by Heads of Government Agencies is increasingly raising concerns about the integrity of Nigeria’s public service. What ought to be a clear and predictable process of retirement, succession and fresh appointment is, in some instances, being replaced by what may be described as a “backdoor extension”.
The issue is not merely about whether a retiring officer should be allowed to continue serving government. It goes to the heart of the rule of law, institutional succession, career progression and fairness within the public service. Retirement rules are designed not only to determine when an officer exits public employment, but also to create room for succession, promotion, institutional renewal and the advancement of younger or next-ranking officers who have spent years preparing to assume greater responsibilities.
Of particular concern is the effect of such extensions on the career of an officer who is legitimately positioned to succeed the retiring officer. Where an officer has put a larger part of his life in the service and is expected to enjoy his sacrifice at the tail end of his career, and someone’s service has been extended with no lawful basis. The continued retention of the retiring officer may effectively block that officer from assuming the office for which he or she has become qualified. In practical terms, what is presented as an extension of one person’s service may become a denial of another person’s career opportunity.
In a structured career service, a delay at one level can have a domino effect throughout an officer’s remaining career, potentially affecting future promotions and the officer’s eventual retirement benefits and professional standing. This practice therefore deserves scrutiny not only from the perspective of the retiring officer, but also from the perspective of the officer whose career progression is being impeded by the extension.
There may, of course, be legitimate circumstances in which government requires the continued expertise of a retired officer. The law may permit such a person to return through a fresh appointment, contract engagement, consultancy or other legally recognised arrangement. However, there is a fundamental difference between a lawful fresh engagement after retirement and the continuation of an officer’s former tenure through an administrative extension that has no clear foundation in law.
The distinction is particularly important in relation to sensitive statutory and financial positions. Where a retired officer continues to exercise the functions of an office, including control over government accounts, statutory signatures or banking mandates, despite the existence of another officer who is expected to be promoted or appointed to succeed him, the question is no longer simply one of personnel management. It becomes a question of legal authority, institutional accountability and the protection of the career rights and legitimate expectations of the next occupant.
Recent developments in some federal, state and government institutions have brought the issue into sharper focus. While the reappointment of a retired officer through a properly authorised fresh appointment may be legally distinguishable from an extension of service, the increasing tendency to retain officers in their existing positions after retirement demands closer examination.
The fundamental question is therefore not whether an experienced officer remains valuable to government, but whether the convenience of retaining one individual can lawfully override the retirement framework and, at the same time, prejudice the career progression of the officer who is entitled to succeed him.
Under the applicable Public Service Rules, compulsory retirement brings an officer’s career service to an end upon reaching the prescribed retirement age or length of pensionable service.
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, the court of first instance on labour and employment issues, has consistently treated compulsory retirement and conditions of service as matters governed by the applicable Public Service Rules and relevant laws.
In Alo William Nwankwo v. Head of Civil Service of the Federation & Ors[1], Hon. President of the National Industrial Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip, PhD, OFR succinctly held that once retirement has legally taken effect, a subsequent administrative decision cannot ordinarily treat the officer as though he never retired, unless there is a clear legal basis for reinstatement, recall, or a fresh appointment.
In ACP Innocent N. Iloka & 4 Ors v. Police Service Commission & 2 Ors[2], the National Industrial Court applied Rule 020810 of the Public Service Rules 2008, which provides that “No officer shall be allowed to remain in service after attaining the retirement age of 60 years or 35 years of service.” and made a significant finding regarding the claimants who had subsequently reached retirement age. Justice Olufunke Anuwe held that those who had reached retirement age were no longer entitled to reinstatement, having passed their retirement ages.
This is important because the Court did not treat retirement as merely an administrative event that could be ignored. Once the lawful retirement date was reached, the Court treated the employment as having lawfully ended.
In Abubakar Mustapha & 69 Ors v. Governor of Kaduna State & Ors, Industrial Court considered Regulation 02809 of the Kaduna State Public Service Rules 2005, wherein Justice Sinmisola Adeniyi reiterated that the Rule does not need a person with clairvoyant skills to understand its plain meaning and held that no officer shall be allowed to remain in service after attaining the retirement age of 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service whichever is earlier.
Also in Princess C. Dimgba & 2 Ors v. Federal Medical Centre Umuahia & 2 Ors[3], the NICN considered Rule 020810 of the Public Service Rules 2008 and emphasised the word “shall.”
Justice Ibrahim Galadima clearly stated that the language of the rule is compulsory and held that the Public Service Rules clearly determine that a public servant cannot exceed the prescribed period of 35 years in service or age 60, whichever comes first.
If the rule says:
“No officer shall be allowed to remain in service…”
The question becomes whether a Head of Agency can, by an administrative letter, effectively replace “shall not remain” with “may remain if the Head of Agency approves.”
The decisions of the National Industrial Court establish that compulsory retirement under the applicable Public Service Rules brings the existing employment relationship to an end. Once an officer has attained the prescribed retirement age or completed the prescribed pensionable service, the officer cannot ordinarily remain in the career service, and where the officer subsequently reaches the mandatory retirement point, the Court has treated the officer as having lawfully retired and no longer entitled to reinstatement.”
If retirement terminates the existing career-service relationship, then an administrative “extension” cannot simply be presumed to continue that relationship after the retirement date. The agency must identify the legal authority under which the officer remains in service or establish that a lawful fresh appointment was made by the competent appointing authority.
In the celebrated case of Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Ojukwu[4], Late Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, JSC emphasised that government authorities, above all others, must respect and operate within the rule of law. Uwais JSC of blessed memory warned that government authorities are not above the law and cannot exercise administrative power merely because they believe it is convenient or desirable to do so.
For instance, where an accountant officially retired in July 2026, the starting legal presumption is that his employment in the public service ended at that point. The fact that the Head of the Agency subsequently directed him to remain in office does not, by itself, automatically revive his status as a serving public officer.
The most important question that demands an answer is under what law or regulation did the Head of the Agency derive the authority to extend the service of an officer whose retirement had already taken effect?
An administrative Head who swore an oath of office in accordance with the Constitution and the Public Service cannot ordinarily create powers that have not been granted by an enabling statute; the Public Service Rules; Judicial Service Regulations; Financial Regulations; a valid delegation of authority; or approval by the legally recognised appointing authority.
Where the law makes retirement compulsory, an administrative directive cannot ordinarily override that mandatory provision merely because the agency wishes to retain the services of the retired officer.
However, there is an important legal distinction between an unlawful continuation of a retired officer’s former employment and a lawful fresh engagement. A retired officer may, in appropriate circumstances, be brought back through a fresh appointment; a contract appointment; consultancy; or another legally authorised engagement.
More importantly, even where a retired person is lawfully re-engaged on contract, the new engagement does not automatically restore every statutory power the person previously exercised as a career public servant. The authority to occupy an office and the authority to exercise statutory powers must be specifically established.
Under the developmental law, the continued access of the retired accountant raises a serious issue. A bank mandate is not merely an administrative privilege. In a government agency, it concerns the legal authority to participate in the management, approval or operation of public funds. If the retired accountant’s authority to access or operate the mandate was derived from his position as the substantive accountant, then the question arises: Did that authority automatically survive his retirement?
In principle, retirement should trigger a review of all authorities attached to the office, including financial signing powers and bank mandates. Without a clear legal foundation, the continued access of a retired officer to a government financial mandate could expose the agency to serious administrative and legal questions.
In conclusion, the issue of retirement in the public service is not one that should be approached solely from the standpoint of administrative discretion, personal loyalty or the desire to retain the services of a trusted officer. It is fundamentally an issue of law, institutional discipline, fairness and constitutional governance. Heads of government agencies, particularly those entrusted with public resources and sensitive statutory responsibilities, must therefore exercise the greatest caution and ensure that every decision concerning retirement, extension of service or continued engagement of retired officers is firmly anchored on the Constitution, applicable laws, Public Service Rules and other relevant regulations.
The issue of service extension should not be viewed merely as an internal administrative arrangement. It concerns the supremacy of the law over administrative discretion, the integrity of public service appointments and accountability in the management of public funds. A government officer cannot ordinarily remain in public service simply because the Executive and Head of Agency wishes him to stay after retirement. Public authority must be exercised within the limits established by law.
The Executive and Heads of Agencies must be reminded that administrative discretion is not a licence to circumvent the law. Where the law prescribes a retirement age or period of service, any departure from that rule must have a clear and lawful foundation. An informal, undocumented or “backdoor” extension of tenure risks not only undermining the rule of law but also creating uncertainty over the validity of acts performed by the affected officer after retirement.
There is also a human and institutional dimension to this issue which must not be overlooked. The sacrifices made by serving officers deserve to be rewarded through a fair and predictable system of succession. When a staff member has attained the required retirement age and another officer has been duly promoted, qualified and approved to assume the position, unnecessarily retaining the retired officer may effectively deny the next officer the opportunity to advance, acquire experience, assume responsibility and build his or her own career.
An extension granted to one officer should not become a career suspension imposed upon another. The Executive and Heads of Agencies should therefore be guided by the constitutional principles of legality, accountability, fairness and good governance. The public service cannot be allowed to become a system where retirement rules are applied selectively or where personal confidence in an individual becomes a basis for overriding established succession arrangements.
This is not to suggest that the contributions of a dedicated retiring officer should be forgotten. Far from it. There are several lawful and dignified ways of recognising and compensating a retired officer for years of meritorious service without resorting to tenure elongation through the back door. Such recognition may take the form of commendations, awards, appropriate consultancy or advisory engagements where permitted by law, special assignments, honorary recognition or other lawful post-retirement arrangements that do not undermine the career structure of serving officers.
The proper approach, therefore, is not to keep a retired officer indefinitely in an office simply because of past dedication, but to honour the officer’s service while respecting the law and opening the door for the next generation of public servants to contribute.
Retirement should not be viewed as punishment for a faithful public servant. It is a legitimate stage in the public service cycle, just as promotion is a legitimate reward for those who have served diligently. The integrity of government institutions depends on both being respected.
The message to every Head of Agency should consequently be clear: be guided by the Constitution and the rule of law; respect the prescribed retirement framework; protect the legitimate career progression of serving officers; and allow those who have retired after years of dedicated service to retire peacefully and with dignity.
A strong institution is not one that depends indefinitely on one individual. It is one that builds systems capable of surviving the departure of even its most dedicated officers.
Fatai Abiodun is a Legal Practitioner, ICT Expert and Journalist Counsel at Levite SolicitorsConstitutional and Developmental Law Researcher
Fatai.abiodun200709@gmail.com | 08072464004
[1] http://nicnadr.gov.ng/judgement/judgement.php?id=8955 accessed 5th September 2026
[2] https://nicnadr.gov.ng/judgement/details.php?id=7350 accessed 5th September 2026
[3] https://nicnadr.gov.ng/judgement/details.php?id=8404 accessed 5th September 2026
[4] Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
