RismadarVoice Reporters
September 20, 2026
The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps has redeployed 79 officers across Akwa Ibom, Kwara and several other state commands, with some affected personnel raising concerns over the absence of financial benefits attached to the exercise.
The redeployments were contained in four separate signals reportedly approved by the NSCDC Commandant General, Prof. Ahmed Abubakar Audi, and signed on his behalf by Musa Farouk B.K.
According to the documents, 60 officers were moved from the Akwa Ibom State Command to commands across the country, while 19 officers were transferred from Kwara State Command to Akwa Ibom.
The signals stated that the redeployments took immediate effect and carried no financial benefits.
Some affected officers have challenged that provision, saying they did not request the transfers and would have to bear substantial transportation, accommodation and relocation expenses.
They argued that officers transferred in the interest of the service, rather than at their own request, may be entitled to benefits under applicable Public Service Rules.
WHAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE RULES SAY
Provisions of the Federal Government Public Service Rules cited in connection with the controversy recognise certain allowances associated with transfers.
Rule 130132 provides for resettlement allowance as compensation for specified out-of-pocket expenses incurred during a transfer, while Rule 130134 provides that the allowance shall be calculated at two per cent of an officer’s annual emolument.
Rule 130135 distinguishes transfers made at an officer’s request, stating that such an officer is entitled to transport allowance but not resettlement allowance.
However, the provisions cited in reports on the controversy do not contain the specific “28-day allowance” claimed by some affected officers.
The precise entitlement of each officer may therefore depend on the circumstances and administrative classification of the redeployment.
OFFICERS ALLEGE SELECTIVE TREATMENT
Some affected personnel alleged that the exercise was selective and disproportionately targeted officers of Akwa Ibom origin, including personnel who had spent more than 15 years serving in the state.
They also alleged that the redeployments followed the intervention of the Akwa Ibom State Commandant, Geraldine Sixtus.
No evidence establishing that allegation was presented in the report, and no response from Sixtus to the claim was included.
The available redeployment signals, however, indicate that the exercise was authorised at the NSCDC National Headquarters and included movement in both directions, with 60 personnel leaving Akwa Ibom and 19 officers moving from Kwara to Akwa Ibom.
The affected officers also maintained that they had not been subjected to disciplinary proceedings that could explain why the transfers were issued without financial benefits.
Those claims remain allegations by the personnel pending further clarification from the NSCDC National Headquarters.
SECURITY AND RELOCATION CONCERNS
Some officers posted from Akwa Ibom to states including Sokoto, Kebbi, Gombe, Katsina, Jigawa and Yobe also raised concerns about the financial and security implications of travelling long distances.
They argued that relocating without financial assistance could be difficult and questioned how personnel unfamiliar with the language and terrain of their new postings would operate effectively.
However, redeployment of personnel between state commands falls within the administrative structure of a federal security organisation, and the fact that an officer is posted outside his or her state of origin does not by itself establish wrongdoing or victimisation.
The central dispute is therefore not simply that personnel were redeployed, but whether the circumstances of the transfers entitled the affected officers to financial benefits and whether established administrative procedures were followed.
NSCDC SPOKESMAN SEEKS CLARIFICATION
Spokesman for the NSCDC Akwa Ibom State Command, Ekerette Friday, confirmed that he had seen the redeployment signals, including the provision stating that no financial benefits were attached.
Friday said the NSCDC is a Federal Government agency and its personnel are governed by the Public Service Rules and other applicable directives.
He said he did not know why the particular redeployments carried no financial benefits and indicated that the matter required clarification from the appropriate authorities.
According to him, transfers without certain benefits may arise where an officer personally requests a transfer or where a transfer follows disciplinary proceedings.
Friday, however, did not establish that either circumstance applied to the 79 officers involved in the current exercise.
He also acknowledged the employer’s duty of care towards personnel required to relocate over considerable distances.
The affected officers are asking the NSCDC leadership to review the exercise and clarify the basis for excluding financial benefits.
As of the information available in the original report, the NSCDC National Headquarters had not provided a detailed explanation addressing the officers’ allegations of selective treatment or specifying why the redeployments carried no financial benefits.
Until such clarification is provided, claims that the exercise amounted to victimisation or breached service rules remain allegations rather than established findings.
