By Rayyanu Bala

A question has been on my mind lately: Is Mohammed Abubakar Adamu still serving as the Inspector-General of Police?
I ask because of something that may appear simple, but deserves some clarification.
In some of the items reportedly distributed by the former IGP, including vehicles and motorcycles, there is a bold inscription identifying him as “IGP.” What is conspicuously missing, however, is the word “former” or “retired.”
Ordinarily, one may argue that “IGP” is simply a reference to the office the person once occupied. But the Inspector-General of Police is not merely a title attached to an individual. It is an office currently occupied by a particular person.
As things stand, Mohammed Abubakar Adamu is a former IGP. The Nigeria Police Force currently identifies Olatunji Rilwan Disu as the serving Inspector-General of Police. The Force itself has referred to Mohammed Abubakar Adamu as a retired IGP.
This therefore raises a legitimate question: when a former occupant of an office continues to have materials bearing the title of that office without an indication such as “former” or “retired,” could this create confusion about who actually occupies the office?
I am not making a legal pronouncement here, and I am certainly not saying that the inscription alone establishes impersonation. That is a matter for the relevant authorities and, if necessary, the courts to determine based on the applicable law and circumstances.
But it is worth asking because public offices come with official titles, and those titles should be used in a manner that does not create unnecessary ambiguity.
Interestingly, the Nigeria Police Force itself has demonstrated the distinction between serving and former IGPs. In February 2026, the Force described Adamu as “IGP M.D. Abubakar (RTD)” while referring to the then-serving occupant as the incumbent IGP.
So, perhaps the simplest solution is also the clearest one: if the person is no longer occupying the office, why not clearly indicate “Former IGP” or “Rtd. IGP” on such materials?
After all, Nigeria has only one serving Inspector-General of Police at any given time. At present, that person is IGP Olatunji Rilwan Disu.
This is not about disrespecting the achievements or contributions of a former IGP. It is about clarity, proper identification of public office holders, and avoiding anything that could cause confusion in the minds of the public.
The question, therefore, remains: should a former IGP continue to use the title “IGP” on official-looking materials without clearly indicating that he is a former or retired occupant of the office?
Perhaps the appropriate authorities should clarify the matter once and for all.