The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has clarified that judges are specifically exempted from President Bola Tinubu’s recent directive regarding the withdrawal of police officers attached to Very Important Persons (VIPs). This directive was primarily issued as a measure to strengthen internal security across the country by redeploying police personnel to frontline duties to combat rising insecurity, including kidnapping, banditry, and other violent crimes. The presidency has emphasized that this policy is non-negotiable for non-exempted VIPs, with plans for alternative security arrangements.

The clarification from the CJN's office was prompted by growing anxiety within the judiciary, particularly after reports emerged from Taraba State. The Chief Judge of Taraba State, Justice Joel Agya, had expressed significant concerns that police orderlies attached to some judges in his state had been withdrawn without prior notice. Justice Agya warned that such actions could expose judges, especially those presiding over sensitive criminal, terrorism, political, and corruption cases, to serious security risks and potentially undermine the independence of the judiciary.

In response to these concerns, Tobi Soniyi, the CJN’s media aide, confirmed that the presidential order does not apply to judicial officers. Soniyi stated that the CJN was not aware of any authorized withdrawal of police personnel specifically attached to judges and reaffirmed that their exemption from the directive remains clear. He also noted that no similar complaints regarding the withdrawal of police personnel had been received from other heads of courts across the federation, suggesting that the Taraba incident might have been an anomaly or misunderstanding.

Further addressing the situation, Taraba State Police authorities denied withdrawing police officers assigned to judges. They clarified that security personnel attached to court duties and judges’ residences were still in place, explaining that the presidential directive only affects personal VIP escorts, not those providing essential security to judicial officers or institutions. This distinction aims to ensure judges continue to enjoy adequate protection as the federal government implements its broader police reform and security realignment strategy.