Some retirees of the Nigeria Police Force under the aegis of the Police Retired Officers Forum of Nigeria (PROF) have staged a protest at the Presidential Villa in Abuja to demand that President Bola Tinubu sign the Police Exit Bill passed by the National Assembly in December 2025.

The bill seeks to withdraw the Nigeria Police Force from the Contributory Pension Scheme.

The protesters, under the scorching sun, walked from the Three Arms Zone in Abuja through the street in front of the Police Headquarters.

They carried placards with various inscriptions, in addition to the Nigerian flag and the flag of the Nigeria Police Force.

Led by its National Coordinator, CSP Raphael Irowainu, the protesters described the retention of the NPF in the Contributory Pension Scheme as fraudulent and illegal.

They also said the CPS is inhumane and obnoxious.

According to them, the protest seeks to prevail on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to give assent to the Police Exit Bill passed by the National Assembly on 4th December 2025 and transmitted to the President on 16th March 2026.

They said that when signed into law, the Act will totally exempt the police from what they called a “slavery and untimely death-inducing pension scheme.”

The protesters, accompanied by some of their spouses and children, also blocked Gate 8 leading into the Presidential Villa, causing obstruction to vehicular movement.

Efforts by Villa security personnel to dissuade them from the protest proved abortive as they insisted on seeing the President.

They laid their mats in front of the gate, singing songs of solidarity, while some of them lay on the floor.

As of the time of filing this report, no one from the Villa had addressed the protesters.

Speaking to reporters, CSP Irowainu said that their main purpose is to prevail on President Tinubu to sign the bill exiting the Nigeria Police Force from the CPS, which he said has been passed and transmitted to him by the National Assembly.

He lamented that while other security agencies in the country such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, SSS and others have all been exited from the scheme, the police remain trapped in it.

“Our major aim here is to prevail on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to sign our bill—the bill exiting the police from the Contributory Pension Scheme—passed by the National Assembly on 4th December 2025 and transmitted to him on 16th March, 2026, into law, nothing more than that.

“The soldiers have been exited, the SSS has been exited, the Air Force has been exited, the Navy has been exited, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) has been exited. The police, who are the father of them all, are trapped in this obnoxious Contributory Pension Scheme,” CSP Irowainu said.

It is not the first time retired officers are staging a protest over the CPS. In July last year, they demonstrated at the National Assembly to demand their removal from the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS).

The demonstrators, mostly elderly, stood in the rain holding placards and chanting antigovernmental songs.

Some of the retired police officers also besieged the Force Headquarters in Abuja to protest against the CPS.

Addressing the protesters at the time, the then Inspector General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, said the welfare of retired police officers was being addressed, but that the exit of the Force from the Contributory Pension Scheme was not something that could be implemented immediately.

He, however, advised the leaders of the protest to refrain from spreading misinformation, stressing that the Force could not abandon its own.

The trial of former Nigerian petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, resumed on Day 21 at the Southwark Crown Court, with her defence pointing to businessmen Benedict Peters and Kola Aluko as key figures behind several luxury assets the prosecution alleges belonged to her.

At the centre of proceedings was a defence-prepared schedule of items, presented as a more accurate account than the prosecution’s list. It sought to distinguish between Alison-Madueke’s personal belongings and items allegedly acquired by associates or for third parties.

Under examination, she admitted owning clothing, accessories, and personal effects but denied ownership of high-value assets, including expensive furniture and luxury goods. She maintained that many of the costlier items were purchased by Peters and Aluko for their own use or for shipment to Nigeria.

The defence argued that the prosecution had wrongly attributed the most expensive items to her, while her confirmed purchases were comparatively modest. Several disputed items were linked to deliveries to St Edmund’s Terrace in London, storage facilities, or were referenced in invoices and emails.

The court also heard evidence of purchases at Harrods, where she described herself as a regular customer but insisted not all transactions linked to her accounts were for her use. Some, she said, were made in her absence, suggesting others—particularly Aluko—acted independently.

On electronic purchases, she said items such as headphones and speakers were often intended as gifts distributed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to officials, community leaders, and associates, especially during festive periods.

Financial records examined included an account linked to one Prince Momoh, showing deposits exceeding $160,000 used for luxury purchases. Alison-Madueke said the staggered payments reflected common Nigerian practices of making large payments in batches.

Questions over private jet travel also arose, with evidence that some flights were funded by third parties. She cited security needs and official engagements, including meetings of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, adding that some costs were later reimbursed.

She recounted multiple international trips tied to official duties, including an urgent return to Nigeria during the 2011 fuel subsidy crisis on the directive of former President Goodluck Jonathan, with the flight later reimbursed.

In emotional testimony, Alison-Madueke described her 2015 arrest in London while undergoing chemotherapy, saying her doctor intervened to secure her release.

She alleged she was targeted as a political scapegoat ahead of Nigeria’s 2015 elections amid intense media scrutiny.

She also questioned the integrity of investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, suggesting records may have been mishandled, and said this prompted her to retain personal documentation.

Since relocating to the UK in 2015, she told the court she has been unable to return to Nigeria or work, relying on support from friends and family, with the prolonged case affecting her health and finances.

The defence further distanced her from co-defendant Omolara Ayinde, saying they had no substantive relationship.

As the day ended, the defence maintained that the case rests on misattribution and circumstantial links, arguing that prosecutors have yet to establish direct ownership or control of the assets.

Proceedings continue with further cross-examination.

Global technology company Meta Platforms, Inc. has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Lagos State High Court delivered in favour of human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, setting the stage for a potentially precedent-setting legal battle over digital rights, platform liability, and the scope of fundamental rights enforcement in Nigeria.

The appeal, dated April 10, 2026, arises from Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025: Falana v. Meta Platforms, Inc., in which Justice O. A. Oresanya ruled in favour of Falana and awarded damages of $25,000 over a video publication alleged to have violated his rights.

Meta’s Notice of Appeal, filed by its legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, sets out eight grounds challenging both the procedural and substantive bases of the High Court’s decision.

At the heart of the appeal is a jurisdictional challenge.

Meta contends that the trial court erred in entertaining the suit as a fundamental rights enforcement action. According to the company, the claims are essentially rooted in alleged false publication and reputational harm—issues that properly fall within the realm of defamation law rather than constitutional rights enforcement.

By allowing the matter to proceed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, Meta argues that the court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess.

The company further disputes the trial court’s finding of liability based on the doctrine of undisclosed principal.

It argues that there was no evidence establishing any principal-agent relationship between Meta and the publisher of the video in question, identified as “AfriCare Health Centre.” Meta maintains that the content was created and posted by an independent third party and that, as an intermediary platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the material.

In addition, the appeal challenges the court’s conclusion that Meta breached Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.

The company insists it was wrongly classified as a data controller, arguing that there is no evidence that it determined either the purpose or the means of processing the personal data involved in the disputed publication.

Meta also faults the award of $25,000 in damages to Falana, describing it as unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. It urges the appellate court to set aside both the award and the entire judgment.

Raising concerns about procedural fairness, Meta alleges that it was denied a fair hearing during the proceedings.

It claims that the trial court raised and determined issues suo motu without inviting submissions from the parties and failed to address key arguments presented in its defence.