When Lagos State Commissioner of Police Tijani Fatai showed up at the City Boy Movement’s Lagos inauguration this week, an event explicitly organized to mobilize support for President Bola Tinubu’s 2027 re-election, the opposition NDC called it disqualifying. However beyond the politics of who’s calling for whose suspension, there’s a genuine institutional question worth examining on its own: does Nigerian law or precedent actually settle whether a serving police commissioner can attend an event like this?

Nigeria’s Police Act 2020, which governs the Force’s structure and conduct, doesn’t contain an explicit clause barring officers from attending political party events, there is no single “no partisan activity” provision the way some other public bodies have. What exists instead is a broader constitutional and institutional expectation of neutrality, rooted in the Police Force’s constitutional role under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution as a national, unified security institution meant to serve all citizens equally, regardless of political affiliation.

What the courts have already said and this is the part that might actually settle the question

Nigeria’s Supreme Court has directly ruled on police neutrality before, and not favorably toward the kind of conduct at issue here. In Attorney-General of the Federation v. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 20 WRN 1, the apex court explicitly rebuked both the Police and INEC for partiality in the management of the 2007 presidential election. The late Justice Pius Aderemi, delivering the court’s position, articulated something that has since been widely cited in Nigerian legal commentary: that public policy demands institutions like the police “do not descend into the arena” of partisan politics, and instead “tend the rope”. A metaphor for staying above the contest rather than participating in it, safeguarding peace and stability rather than taking sides.

This is a direct, judicial articulation of the standard: Nigeria’s highest court has already said security institutions attending or participating in partisan political contests undermines the “aura of neutrality” the Constitution vests in them even where, as in Fatai’s case, no formal misconduct proceeding has been filed and no law was necessarily broken in a strict technical sense.

Why appearance matters as much as intent

Fatai’s defenders might likely argue that “exchanging pleasantries” at an event, as the viral videos show, isn’t the same as endorsing a candidate. He didn’t speak, campaign, or issue any statement of support. That’s a fair point. But the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Atiku case wasn’t built around proving actual bias in enforcement, it was mostly about the institutional damage caused by the mere appearance of partisan alignment. A commissioner of police who will be operationally responsible for security during the 2027 election being visibly present, in uniform or officially, at a rally organized to drive votes for one candidate creates exactly the kind of doubt the court was concerned about, regardless of what was or wasn’t said at the event itself.

What this means for the current controversy

The NDC demand for Fatai’s suspension is a political ask, and it’s fair to note the party has an obvious interest in raising it. The underlying institutional concern however isn’t manufactured, it’s grounded in actual Supreme Court precedent specifically about Nigerian police conduct around elections, not just a partisan talking point. Whether the Nigeria Police Force disciplines Fatai is one question; whether his attendance was consistent with the standard Nigeria’s own courts have already articulated is a separate, more answerable one.

Neither Fatai nor the Nigeria Police Force has issued a public response addressing the specific allegation as of this report. It’s also unclear whether Fatai attended in an official capacity (in uniform, with police protocol) or as a private citizen.

I Want Neusroom By Mail

Please sign me up!

I would like to receive news and special offers.