By Olawale Lamina
A voice of condemnation has continued to trail the bill seeking to extend the years of service of legislative staff at the National Assembly from the current 35 years to 40 years, including their retirement age from 60 years to 65 years, with those who opposed the move asking for the retention of the existing years of service as a way of promoting career professnalism.
Recall that, not too long, the proposed elongation of retirement age for workers was similarly rejected by the National Council on Establishment, NCE, even against the backdrop of the country’s large army of unemployed youths and abysmally low job opportunities.
In its argument against the bill for the extension of the service years of public servants, said to have been supported by the Nigeria Labour Congress, the leadership of the NCE had stated among other reasons, that an upward review of the retirement age negates the principles of renewal, youth empowerment and innovation, going by the realities confronting the country.
Although, other supporters of 65 years as the new retirement age or 40 years of service argued that the country may be losing many experienced and active workers, who are likely to contribute to the development of the nation the more.
Investigations by the The Pinnacle Times revealed that it was on this premise that the Federal Government had at different times adjusted the retirement age for some categories of public servants, among whom are judges and judicial officers, lecturers and non-academic staff in tertiary institutions of learning, including the primary and secondary school teachers. Consequently, President Bola Tinubu in June 2023, assented to a constitution amendment bill harmonising the retirement age of judges and judicial officers to 70 as against 65, in order ensure uniformity in their retirement age and pension rights.
Also recall that the policy of extension of service was started by the immediate past administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, who in 2022 signed a law extending the retirement age for teachers from 60 to 65 years. Since then, according to information from the Nigeria Union of Teachers, no fewer than15 states in the country had embarked on the implementation of the law.
As to why the controversial bill has gained less traction in recent times, a senior civil servant of the rank of Deputy Director disclosed under conditions of anonymity that, already, a group of very senior legislative staff (of NASS) are against the bill, “especially because it will lead to serious stagnation (in the system)……
“You understand that if they come to the open and the bill eventually passes they will be targeted.”
One of such groups had recently voiced their opposition to the bill by presenting their position which was titled: Point of Legislation on the harmonized Retirement Age for the Staff of National Assembly ( which had remained silent so far).
The group categorically stated that they had hoped to educate The Senate that, “the Harmonized Retirement Age for the Staff of the National Assembly Bill is self-serving and lacking in merit due to non-existent legislative experts and sufficiently trained officers in the service as at today.
“That the Bill makes no appeal to any right-thinking statesman, scholar of the legislative process or a section of the conscientized National Assembly personnel.
“That the Bill will certainly plunge the nation’s public service into chaos, discontent and disenchantment.”
The group observed that same Bill had during the 8th and 9th Assemblies suffered setback from various stakeholders who argued that the extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years and service years from 35 to 40 years will create redundancy and stagnancy among the workers.
Other demerits of the controversial bill, according to the group, include the fact that it “will further defer chances of the staff having timely access to successive schedules of duty and promotion, while at the same time capable of affecting the regular promotions of the staff of the National Assembly.
The group emphasized that
as at now that the “Bill is pending in the Senate, year 2023 promotion for Directors w.e.f. 01/01/2023 is yet to be released for dearth of vacancies.”
Apart from the fact that, “the Bill does not complement the Federal Government’s effort towards repositioning the nation in line with the Council on Establishment’s Resolution at its 45th Meeting held December, 2023 in Bauchi which, for the umpteenth time rejected outrightly, the request for upward review of retirement age for public servants to 40 years of service or 65 years of age in view of the fact that it is contrary to national aspiration of renewal, youth empowerment, innovation and also not in tandem with the reality of our population dynamics.”
Speaking on the development, a source within the National Assembly circle disclosed that, opposition to the bill for the extension of the years of service of public servants led to the position paper that “was prepared by staff to educate the senators, but of course, management had their way……. it was never read on the floor as a motion.”
The source also alleged that there were divisions in the National Assembly over the matter. He said,
“But note that Senators like Abaribe was totally against it and shared similar views at the plenary two weeks ago when it was discussed.
He revealed that in 2020, under former Sen. President Lawan, about 156 staff of NASS were relieved of their employment following the expiration of their service, arguing that same some of the NASS members preferred to remain in the same position even for 50 years.
In another breath, the group also noted that the bill on extension of years of service for the category of people “does not complement the Federal Government’s effort towards repositioning the nation in line with the Council on Establishment’s Resolution at its 45th Meeting held December, 2023 in Bauchi which, for the umpteenth time rejected outrightly, the request for upward review of retirement age for public servants to 40 years of service or 65 years of age in view of the fact that it is contrary to national aspiration of renewal, youth empowerment, innovation and also not in tandem with the reality of our population dynamics.”
They equally expressed regrets that it remains unthinkable that while Nigeria as a nation borrows to pay workers’ salaries, overwhelming number of its unemployed graduates loiter the streets and yet issues of “extension of the service years of those who have exceeded 35 years of service or 60 years of age by additional 5 years still surface.”
The concerned group warned that, “the bill, if passed, would lead to unhealthy rivalry and uncontrollable agitation in the public service, which may in turn result in “surges in institutional demands and avoidable burden of recurrent expenditures on government.”
Finally, they criticized the fact that the bill also indicated a ” fragrant disregard to the salient provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which classifies the Clerk and other Staff of the National Assembly as public servants whose conditions of service are guided by the Public Service Rules which derives its existence from section 169 made pursuant to section 160(1) of the Constitution,” while adding that the bill in question “prescribes a departure from section 318(1) of the Constitution which states that ‘public service of the Federation means the service of any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation’ and includes as (a) Clerk or other Staff of the National Assembly or of each House of the National Assembly.”
As a way forward, the concerned group called on the authorities to: “stand down the Harmonized Retirement Age for the Staff of the National Assembly Bill throughout the 10th Senate to enable the National Assembly as an institution, particularly its Management map out and implement strategies at professionalizing the parliamentary career with requisite credentials, paying adequate attention to the training and retraining of its teeming workforce with particular design for both existing and prospective legislative experts (far beyond the dictates of rank or cadre) as in the cases of Judges and Academics whose further retention in service is obvious considering the fountains of wisdom and knowledge, respectively.”
Rights Activist Urges Pres.Tinubu to Decline Assent to Bill..
A human rights activist based in Abuja, Maduabuchi Idam, has cautioned President Bola Tinubu against giving his assent to the bill seeking to elongate the years of service of legislative staff at the National Assembly from 35 years to 40 years and their retirement age from 60 years to 65 years, describing the bid as grossly undemocratic and self-motivated.
In an open letter of protest addressed to President Tinubu, dated March 3, 2024, Idam expressed dismay that the National Assembly pushed the bill that could lead to monotony in public office.
In a letter titled, “Bill for Extension of the Retirement Age of members of the National Assembly,” the rights lawyer said, “I read in the newspapers that the tenth Assembly, on Thursday the 28th day of February 2024, passed a bill seeking to extend the maximum years of service of legislative staff at the National Assembly from thirty-five years to forty years, and the retirement age of the National Assembly members from sixty years to sixty-five years. The bill now awaits Your Excellency’s assent.
“Without pretence, I daresay that the Bill is a selfish legislative exercise, which the tenth National Assembly is characterized with.”
In his view, the bill was put forward against the interest of the common man, in preference of the regular politicians who considered the National Assembly as a retirement home.
The letter reads further: “Your Excellency, I am disappointed that such a bill which encourages monotony in public office was considered and passed by the National Assembly at a time when young Nigerians yearn for inclusion into the nation’s polity in order to contribute fresh ideas to the system.
“Your Excellency, I seek your indulgence to, without hesitation, employ your powers to reject, decline or refuse to assent to the bill as same is grossly undemocratic and self-motivated.”
About The Author
