The Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) is a federal legislation in Nigeria that sets a statutory time limit for filing actions against public officers for acts done in the course of their official duties.
However, as Nigerian courts have repeatedly clarified, the Act does not give blanket immunity to public officers who act outside their lawful authority or in bad faith.
Below is a summary of key judicial decisions from the Nigerian Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on the interpretation and limits of the Public Officers Protection Act:
Purpose of the Public Officers Protection Act
In BIYI CO. LTD v. CHIEF REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF THE FCT & ANOR (2021) LPELR-55872(CA), the Court reaffirmed the purpose of the Act:
The Public Officers Protection Act is intended to shield public officers from prolonged litigation and harassment for acts done within the scope of their lawful duties. However, it was never intended to serve as a weapon of injustice.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in A.G, Rivers State v. A.G., Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt.1340) 123, which held that the Act protects officers acting in good faith but not those engaging in acts of injustice, bad faith, or abuse of office.
Acts Done in Bad Faith or Abuse of Office: No Protection
In NFVCB & ORS v. MARTINS (2024) LPELR-62210(CA), the Court emphasized that:
Where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant acted in bad faith, maliciously, mischievously, or ultra vires (beyond legal authority), the defendant cannot hide under the Public Officers Protection Act.
The Court held that mala fide (bad faith) and ultra vires acts remove a public officer from the protection of the Act. This reinforces the principle that the Act does not cover illegal, malicious, or unauthorized acts.
Specific Factors That Will Deny Protection Under POPA
In FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI & ORS v. ADAIPONU (2021) LPELR-54772(CA), the Court outlined specific factors that will disqualify a public officer from claiming protection under Section 2(a) of the Act:
Abuse of Office Bad Faith Malice Lack of Legal Justification
The Court noted that the Act should not be used as a shield for public officers engaging in illegality and injustice.
Does POPA Apply to Public Institutions and Corporate Bodies?
In MINING CADASTRE OFFICE v. UIG PETROLEUM & TRANSPORT INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR-46046(CA), the Court clarified that:
The Public Officers Protection Act applies to both natural persons and artificial persons (public institutions, government agencies, and statutory bodies).
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ibrahim v. Judicial Service Commission of Kaduna State (1998) LPELR-1408 (SC), which confirmed that corporate entities performing public functions are covered by the Act.
The Court of Appeal criticized the lower court’s mistaken view that POPA applies only to individuals, reaffirming that government bodies can also benefit from the Act’s protection, provided their actions fall within lawful authority and good faith.
Conclusion
The Public Officers Protection Act plays a critical role in protecting public officers and government agencies from endless litigation, but its protection is not absolute. Nigerian courts have consistently ruled that the Act does not shield officers who act outside their lawful authority, act maliciously, in bad faith, or abuse their office.
When contemplating legal action against a public officer or agency, it is important to carefully assess whether:
The action falls within the time limitation period set by the Act (usually 3 months from the cause of action), and Whether the officer acted in good faith and within lawful authority.
Where bad faith, malice, or abuse of office is alleged and established, the courts will allow the action to proceed, notwithstanding the time limit imposed by the Act.
Disclaimer:
This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific advice on the Public Officers Protection Act or any related litigation, please consult a qualified Nigerian lawyer.