![\"\"](\"https:\/\/psmnigeria.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-1.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nPix: IGP Disu<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The available statistics underline the seriousness of the problem. In July 2026, the police reportedly disclosed receiving 3,922 public complaints within three months, while 38 officers indicted over misconduct allegations were undergoing disciplinary procedures. Earlier, in April 2026, the Force Disciplinary Committee announced a review of pending disciplinary cases involving 167 senior officers, including Assistant Superintendents and higher-ranking personnel. These figures suggest that indiscipline is not exclusively a problem among junior officers. It raises fundamental questions about professional supervision, command responsibility and the effectiveness of internal accountability mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is particularly disturbing is the apparent normalisation of defiance within certain sections of the Force. Police authority is founded on a clearly established chain of command, professional regulations and obedience to lawful directives. When officers repeatedly disregard established procedures, abuse their powers or behave as though their personal interests supersede institutional regulations, the problem goes beyond individual misconduct. It becomes a leadership challenge. The IGP must ensure that no officer, irrespective of rank, formation, political connection or operational influence, considers himself above the authority of the Force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This brings us to some uncomfortable questions: Is Disu tired of confronting the indiscipline he inherited? Are some of his officers becoming more powerful than the authority they are supposed to obey? Has the IGP lost the confidence and loyalty necessary to enforce discipline throughout the Force? These questions should not be mistaken for established conclusions that he has lost control. However, persistent misconduct and repeated public complaints make it imperative for the police leadership to demonstrate that its directives are being respected and enforced. An Inspector-General cannot afford to preside over an institution where his instructions are treated as optional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To be fair, Disu inherited a police institution with longstanding structural and disciplinary problems. The challenges confronting him did not begin with his appointment. Allegations of extortion, brutality, unlawful detention, extrajudicial killings and abuse of authority have featured in public complaints against the Force for years. It would therefore be unfair to expect him to dismantle decades of institutional weaknesses within a few months. He deserves some understanding for the enormity of the assignment. Nevertheless, inherited problems cannot become an enduring justification for inadequate results. Leadership is ultimately measured by the ability to confront difficult circumstances and produce measurable improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Disu has also demonstrated some willingness to confront misconduct. His directives on professional standards, restrictions on unauthorised social media activities by serving personnel and disciplinary interventions against officers accused of misconduct indicate an awareness of the problem. However, issuing directives is different from enforcing them. Nigerians need to see the outcomes of investigations, appropriate sanctions against offending officers and criminal prosecution where the evidence establishes criminal liability. Transfers and administrative reshuffling must never become convenient substitutes for justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One important area requiring urgent attention is the strengthening of the Professional Standards Department and X-Squad. These units must be empowered to investigate complaints independently, without interference from influential officers or commanders. The Force should also establish a publicly accessible quarterly accountability report indicating the number of complaints received, investigations concluded, officers sanctioned, dismissals, prosecutions and unresolved cases. Transparency will help distinguish unsubstantiated allegations from proven misconduct and demonstrate whether the administration is making genuine progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Equally important is the need to hold Commissioners of Police, Assistant Inspectors-General, Area Commanders and Divisional Police Officers accountable for professional standards within their respective jurisdictions. Supervisory officers must not escape responsibility when they deliberately ignore misconduct, protect offending personnel or frustrate investigations. The IGP should introduce periodic performance assessments that consider not only operational achievements but also public complaints, human rights compliance and disciplinary records. Commands that consistently fail to maintain professional standards should attract appropriate administrative scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Force must also address the operational conditions that encourage misconduct. Inadequate welfare, poor supervision, corruption risks and insufficient professional training can create an environment in which unethical practices flourish. Police personnel require regular training in human rights, investigative procedures, emotional intelligence, conflict management and the lawful use of force. However, poor working conditions must never be accepted as an excuse for extortion, brutality, torture or criminal conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another essential reform is the establishment of accessible and credible complaint mechanisms. Citizens should be able to report police misconduct without fear of intimidation, unlawful detention or retaliation. Every complaint should receive a reference number, an acknowledgement and an explanation of the outcome when the investigation is concluded. Where officers are suspected of committing criminal offences, internal disciplinary procedures should not prevent appropriate criminal prosecution. The constitutional responsibilities of the Police Service Commission must also be respected in matters within its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IGP must equally recognise that public confidence cannot be restored through press conferences and official assurances alone. Nigerians want to see a police institution that protects rather than intimidates, investigates rather than extorts, and enforces the law rather than violates it. Every officer who abuses a citizen’s rights damages the reputation of thousands of hardworking personnel who perform their duties honourably. Disu must therefore protect the integrity of the profession by making discipline, accountability and respect for human rights non-negotiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, the question is not whether Disu inherited a difficult police institution. He certainly did. The more important question is whether he can transform that institution before indiscipline further erodes public confidence and weakens his authority. He must demonstrate that the office of the Inspector-General carries real command authority, that lawful directives are binding and that misconduct attracts consequences regardless of the rank of the offender. Sympathy for the challenges he inherited must go hand in hand with accountability for the results of his administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Nigeria Police Force cannot continue to operate under a cloud of public distrust. IGP Olatunji Disu must rise above the challenge, reclaim the disciplinary authority of his office and demonstrate that nobody is bigger than the institution. If indiscipline becomes the order of the day and defiance the culture of the Force, who then is truly in charge of the Nigeria Police?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Isiaka Mustapha, Editor-in-Chief, People\u2019s Security Monitor writes from Abuja.<\/p>\n\n\n\n