What NIC Did to Police Officer Who Shot Woman at Checkpoint, Claimed ‘Accidental Discharge

By Our Correspondent

He was acquitted of murder, but the victory did not bring back his police job. A National Industrial Court ruling has upheld the dismissal of Corporal Ishmael Iwatt, saying his “accidental discharge” defence raised serious concerns about his ability to safely handle a service rifle

Can a police officer be reinstated after being acquitted of murder? Not necessarily. The National Industrial Court has ruled that a criminal acquittal does not automatically restore employment where an officer was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings over his handling of a service firearm. In Corporal Ishmael Iwatt’s case, the court upheld his dismissal despite his acquittal, finding that the circumstances of the shooting raised serious concerns about his fitness to carry a police weapon.

OWERRI — A police corporal who was acquitted of murdering a woman at a checkpoint has lost his bid to return to the Nigeria Police Force after the National Industrial Court (NIC), Port Harcourt Division, sitting in Owerri, upheld his dismissal.

The court ruled that the officer’s acquittal did not automatically restore his job. It held that his own account of an “accidental discharge” raised serious concerns about his ability to safely handle a service rifle.

Justice Nelson Ogbuanya delivered the judgment in a suit filed by Corporal Ishmael Iwatt against the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State.

The case turned on a crucial question: Does an acquittal for murder mean a police officer must be reinstated after being dismissed for conduct involving a firearm?

The NIC answered no.

Why the NIC rejected the reinstatement bid

Iwatt had argued that the murder allegation formed the basis of his dismissal and that his subsequent discharge and acquittal by the High Court meant he should be returned to the police.

However, Justice Ogbuanya drew a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and employment responsibility.

According to the court, an acquittal means the prosecution failed to prove the criminal charge to the required standard. It does not, by itself, erase the employer’s disciplinary findings or create an automatic right to reinstatement.

The judge found that the circumstances surrounding the shooting remained relevant to the police disciplinary process.

At the centre of the dispute was Iwatt’s defence that the shooting was an “accidental discharge”.

What happened at the checkpoint?

According to evidence before the court, Iwatt was posted to the Railway by Ordinances stop-and-search point while armed with a sub-machine gun (SMG), number OFN 13618.

The rifle was said to have been loaded with eight rounds of ammunition.

The police disciplinary charge stated that Iwatt fired five rounds at a Volkswagen vehicle. The bullets struck a woman inside the vehicle, causing her death.

Iwatt gave a different account during the police orderly room trial.

He said a red vehicle was approaching the checkpoint at high speed and that he feared it would hit him.

According to his account, he held his SMG and jumped to avoid the vehicle. He said his leg then struck one of the tyres being used as a barrier.

As he fell, he said, the gun dropped from his hand and he heard it fire.

The court, however, found the explanation troubling.

Justice Ogbuanya noted that Iwatt did not deny that the rifle was loaded with eight rounds or that five rounds were fired.

That evidence, the court held, raised a separate question about whether he could safely be entrusted with a firearm again.

‘Accidental discharge’ did not save him

The court said the rifle was not simply the officer’s personal property. It was a “work tool” entrusted to him for the performance of a serious public duty.

Therefore, the issue before the NIC was not whether Iwatt intentionally murdered the woman.

Instead, the court had to determine whether his conduct made him unsuitable to remain in a position where he would be required to carry and use a firearm.

Justice Ogbuanya held that the “accidental discharge” defence could not, in the circumstances of the case, excuse what the court considered reckless handling of a service weapon.

The judge further noted that deaths linked to alleged accidental discharges by police officers during stop-and-search operations remained a serious concern.

Such incidents, he said, could raise questions about the competence and judgment of officers entrusted with firearms.

Dismissal was upheld

The court also considered the report of the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), who had recommended Iwatt’s dismissal.

The DPO reportedly described Iwatt as an officer who had repeatedly failed to learn from his conduct and had brought the image of the police into disrepute.

The DPO recommended his dismissal and his transfer to the State Criminal Investigation Department to face the murder allegation.

Justice Ogbuanya held that the orderly room proceedings provided sufficient grounds for the punishment imposed.

The judge said it was therefore not appropriate to order Iwatt’s reinstatement.

The court also rejected the argument that the High Court’s acquittal had automatically revived his employment.

Dismissal ended his employment, court rules

Iwatt had asked the NIC to declare that he remained a police officer because he had been acquitted of the murder charge.

He also sought reinstatement, restoration of his rank, payment of accrued entitlements and other benefits.

The court rejected the claims.

Justice Ogbuanya held that once an employee has been dismissed, he is legally out of office unless the dismissal is successfully challenged before a court with jurisdiction to do so.

The judge also pointed out an apparent contradiction in Iwatt’s claims.

While he argued that he remained in the police service, he also sought an order for reinstatement.

According to the court, the legal effect of dismissal was that Iwatt had been removed from office. He could only return if he successfully challenged the dismissal.

“As it stands, once dismissed, the legal reality is that the Claimant has been ousted from office following the coming into effect of the punishment of dismissal recommended by the Orderly room trial, and can only be reinstated upon successful challenge of the dismissal in this court,” Justice Ogbuanya held.

The judge further ruled that the punishment of dismissal was “proper and deserving”.

Consequently, the claims for reinstatement, restoration of rank, payment of arrears and other benefits were dismissed.

“On the whole, the suit fails and is hereby dismissed,” the judge ruled.

The court made no order as to costs.

NIC highlights criminal and employment law distinction

The judgment also raised a wider legal issue concerning criminal cases involving workers and separate disciplinary proceedings arising from the same conduct.

Justice Ogbuanya referred to Section 254C(5) of the Nigerian Constitution, which gives the National Industrial Court jurisdiction over criminal causes and matters arising from or connected with matters within its jurisdiction, subject to the Constitution.

The judgment highlights the potential difficulty that can arise when an employee faces a criminal trial before a High Court while a separate employment dispute is later brought before the NIC.

In Iwatt’s case, the High Court’s acquittal settled the criminal allegation against him.

It did not, however, settle the separate question of whether the police were entitled to discipline him over his handling of a service firearm.

What the judgment means

The decision reinforces an important distinction in employment law.

An acquittal does not always mean reinstatement.

Where an employer has dismissed an employee for conduct connected to his duties, a subsequent criminal acquittal does not necessarily invalidate the disciplinary decision.

In Iwatt’s case, the NIC focused on whether he remained fit to carry a firearm as a police officer.

The court ultimately concluded that the circumstances surrounding the discharge of five rounds from his service rifle were enough to justify his dismissal.

For Iwatt, the outcome means that his acquittal on the murder charge did not restore his police career.

His dismissal remains valid, while his claims for reinstatement, restoration of rank and payment of accrued benefits have failed.

The ruling also sends a wider message about accountability among officers entrusted with firearms: being cleared of a criminal charge does not necessarily remove the professional consequences of conduct found to be unsafe or reckless in the workplace.