CHECKPOINT KILLING: NICN UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF A POLICE OFFICER FREED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MURDER — LESSONS
One of the most harrowing instances of police excesses in Nigeria is the extrajudicial killing of citizens. Through the mounting of roadblocks and illegal stop-and-search operations, some officers of the Nigerian Police perpetrate corrupt activities as if in a trademark fashion. Many of these erring officers go unchecked at checkpoints and until news of their excesses make the rounds, not much seems to be done.
In a dramatic true life event, an innocent young lady was hit by the bullets from the gun of a police officer on duty at a highway checkpoint in Rivers State. The officer had himself to blame as he was dismissed from service following an orderly room trial for unprofessional conduct, and subsequently charged to court for murder. However, the High Court discharged and acquitted him from the murder charge. As a free man, he confidently approached the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) praying the Court to order the Police to reinstate him. However, to his utter dismay, the NICN deflated his confidence, refused his supplications, and treated us to one of the most well-considered judgments to emanate from that Court. The case is Suit No. NICN/PHC/117/2017: CPL Ishmael Iwatt v The Nigeria Police Force & Ors. decided on 20 April 2026.
CPL ISHMAEL IWATT v THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE
Facts
On 2 July 2010, the Claimant, Corporal Ishmael Iwatt (CPL Iwatt), a police officer, was on a stop and search duty in company of other police officers along Ordinance-Railway by Elekahia Link Road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. In their usual style, the policemen narrowed the road with tyres. A man riding in a red car with his girlfriend, one Miss Peace Ifeoma Nicholas, approached the road with speed. One of the police officers shouted at the driver of the car to stop but the driver was unable to stop as he ran over the tyres used to narrow the road.
As the car continued towards the direction of CPL Iwatt, a gunshot was heard which resulted in the death of the young lady inside the car. It was discovered that the gun fire came from the sub-machine gun (SMG) wielded by CPL Iwatt at the time. The rifle originally loaded with eight rounds of bullets had only three left as five were fired. Upon realising the unfortunate development, the officer leading the team disarmed CPL Iwatt immediately.
Sadly, without her consent, Miss Peace was made to rest in peace in her prime. But CPL Iwatt was not going to have any peace as the matter was reported at the Trans Amadi Police Station where the officers were attached. CPL Iwatt was subjected to an orderly room trial. His defence was ‘accidental discharge’. This is the common line of defence often set up by trigger-happy police officers. CPL Iwatt claimed that he was unable to control his rifle as the car had approached his direction at high speed. Scared, he jumped for safety and hit his leg against one of the tyres used as barriers and fell. While he was falling, he heard his gun firing itself as it fell out of his hand. Notwithstanding this defence, CPL Iwatt was found guilty of discreditable conduct as his defence was regarded as a cock-and-bull story. Consequently, he was dismissed from service and subsequently charged for murder at the High Court.
It happened that CPL Iwatt was eventually discharged and acquitted of the murder charge. Following this outcome, CPL Iwatt commenced an action at the NICN to quash his dismissal from service. He alleged that his dismissal was irregular, wrongful and unjustified, and that the procedure adopted for his orderly room trial failed to comply with due process and violated his right to fair hearing. He also alleged that his right of appeal against the verdict was foreclosed. He urged the Court to make declarations in this regard. He further urged the Court, among other claims, to make an order reinstating him in office.
CPL Iwatt reasonably believed that having been discharged and acquitted of murder by the High Court, the NICN should have no difficulty setting aside the verdict of the Police authorities which found him guilty of discreditable conduct, leading to his dismissal.
One interesting fact is that none of the Defendants (The Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State Command) filed any defence to the suit. Therefore, one would have imagined that CPL Iwatt, as the Claimant, would have had a smooth sail to a successful judgment. But he was hit by some rounds of shock fired from the immaculate pronouncements of the Learned Trial Judge, Hon. Justice N. C. S. Ogbuanya.
The Court’s Decision
Allegation of Lack of Due Process and Fair Hearing was not proved
The Court held that in view of the declaratory reliefs sought by CPL Iwatt, he was bound to prove his case in order to succeed. Therefore, the Court took time to carefully consider the evidence supplied by CPL Iwatt and came to the inevitable conclusion that he failed to prove his allegations. On the allegation of lack of due process and fair hearing, the Learned Trial Judge held:
“I have reviewed the orderly room trial proceedings, tendered in evidence and marked as “exh.C2”, and find no infraction of requisite due process and observance of fair hearing principles of the rules of natural justice, in that the Claimant was involved and actively participated in the trial proceedings, and cross-examined all prosecution witnesses and was not denied fair hearing.”
On the allegation that his right of appeal against the verdict was foreclosed, Ogbuanya J. combed through the records and held as follows:
“Another arising question is as to –whether the Claimant’s right to appeal the verdict of the orderly room trial was breached? The front cover of exh.C2 is a forwarding letter dated 5th July 2010, and the punishment was handed down on 3rd July 2010. The right of Appeal is endorsed thus: “RIGHT OF APPEAL: – The defaulter is hereby informed of his right to appeal within seven days from date of judgment with effect from 03/07/2010”. Let me ask- how was the Claimant foreclosed from his right of appeal? The exh.C3 –the appeal letter dated 6th July 2010 was addressed to the 3rd Defendant, and duly acknowledged with receipt stamp. It was also within the time line of 7 days of appeal which expires on 10th July 2010. Even “exh.C4” which is Police Wireless Message released on 07/07/2010, communicating the outcome of the orderly room trial and verdict of guilt and directing stoppage of the Claimant’s salary and ejection from barracks, did not affect right of appeal, as it is in furtherance of the punishment of guilty verdict, which could be upturned on appeal procedure, more so, as mere appeal is not stay of execution. I therefore find no evidence that the Claimant’s right to appeal was foreclosed, instead he exhausted his right to appeal by exh.C3.”
Discharge and Acquittal from Murder Charge did not automatically nullify the outcome of the Orderly Room Trial
The Court held that the discharge and acquittal of CPL Iwatt did not automatically imply that his dismissal from service by the Police authorities following his orderly room trial must be overturned. Ogbuanya J. stated:
“…[It] is not automatic that once an employee in a statutory employment is discharged /acquitted in a criminal trial at the High Court, he/she is entitled to reinstatement to office without more at the National Industrial Court.”
The Court considered the orderly room trial proceedings against CPL Iwatt and found that the verdict of the Police authorities dismissing him was in order. In upholding the verdict, the Court reasoned that given the circumstance of CPL Iwatt’s own defence of ‘accidental discharge’ where he fired 5 out of 8 bullets loaded in his rifle, which hit and killed a young lady in a car, he cannot be trusted again with carrying a rifle.
For the foregoing reasons, the case of CPL Iwatt was dismissed for lacking in merit.
Call against Bifurcation of Proceedings
Let me conclude this piece by discussing an important issue raised by the Court in this case. From what we have seen in the case under review, the Claimant was subjected to an orderly room trial, found guilty and dismissed. He was thereafter charged before the High Court for murder. When he was discharged and acquitted, he then approached the NICN to challenge his dismissal from service because the NICN is the court with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such complaints being an employment matter.
Meanwhile, by virtue of Section 254 C (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the NICN is clothed with jurisdiction to entertain criminal matters arising from employment relations. This jurisdiction is concurrent as the High Court also has jurisdiction to treat such criminal cases.
However, the question is whether the NICN is in a better position to deal with such cases instead of the High Court. This question did not arise in CPL Iwatt’s case. But the Court expressed an opinion in support. According to the Court, this is to avoid bifurcate-proceedings. The reasoning of the Court is that where the criminal proceedings fail against the employee (as in the case of CPL Iwatt who was set free by the High Court), the NICN may likely be called to review the earlier dismissal. To avoid this, the Learned Trial Judge believed that it is better to institute such a criminal case at the NICN instead of the High Court. In his Lordship’s words:
“Ordinarily, to obviate such bifurcate-proceedings at the High Court and the National Industrial Court, both civil and criminal aspects would ideally be conducted at the National Industrial Court, also by virtue of S.254C (5) of the Constitution (as Amended) is vested with concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over criminal matters arising from civil jurisdiction of the Court, such as in the instant suit involving workplace issue of wrongful use of official work tool (weapon) on duty.”
The Learned Trial Judge’s idea seems interesting. The only issue is that we must first consider whether the criminal case can be validly said to have arisen from employment relations. This is because if it was found otherwise, only the High Court will have jurisdiction. In order to avoid a situation where criminal proceedings before the NICN might be challenged or quashed for want of jurisdiction, it is safer to approach the High Court for the criminal prosecution. Thereafter, the NICN may be visited to handle any civil issue relating to employment termination.
In the case of CPL Iwatt, can it really be said that the act of firing bullets which resulted in the death of the young lady was purely employment-related? Ogbuanya J. believes so. The Learned Trial Judge seemed to have found the connection when his Lordship described the conduct complained of as a “wrongful use of official work tool (weapon) on duty.” I agree the connection is there. The NICN has jurisdiction.
In further support of this position, the Court stated:
“Perhaps, if both the criminal trial was conducted at the National Industrial Court as envisaged by the provisions of S.254C (5) of the Constitution (as amended), all related issues would have been holistically considered as against bifurcated proceedings.”
On the above, it is difficult to see how the NICN would have “holistically” dealt with all “related issues.” Assuming CPL Iwatt was charged before the NICN and not the High Court, the NICN would be restricted to the criminal proceedings which have its own distinct procedure. The Court will strictly deal with the issue of determining whether CPL Iwatt was guilty of murder as charged. Any complaints against the orderly room trial and consequential dismissal from service for discreditable conduct remains a civil matter to be independently treated in a separate civil suit.
Accordingly, after the criminal case at the NICN, CPL Iwatt would have to file a separate suit at the same NICN to challenge his dismissal like he did. More so, there is a likelihood that the Judge who handled the criminal prosecution may not be the same Judge to handle the civil suit.
Also, as we have seen, in determining the civil suit, the NICN is not bound by the outcome of the criminal charge—whether conducted at the High Court or the NICN—and can hardly be influenced by it. Focus will squarely rest on the review of the steps taken by the employer in terminating the employment. This is the reason the Court in CPL Iwatt’s case rightly found that, notwithstanding his discharge and acquittal, the Police was right in dismissing him for discreditable conduct.
