BY
AMAEFULE UCHECHUKWU ERNEST
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the controversy surrounding the justifiability of the payment of severance allowances and pensions to political office holders/appointees. In particular, this paper scrutinizes the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gov. Of Kogi State and 3 ors v Nuhu Ahmed and 5 ors[1]where the Court criticized the payment of severance allowances and pensions to political office holders/appointees. In the final analysis, this essay will critique the Court of Appeal’s decision and propose a better view that accords with extant applicable laws.
2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CASE
The Court in this case per Emmanuel Akomaje Agim J.C.A was averse to the payment of pensions and severance allowances to political office holders/appointees who just hold offices for a short period. In the words of the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal, (which I will reproduce in a nutshell) he criticized these payments thus:
‘the fact that elected public office holders and political appointees are paid huge amounts of money as monthly salaries and other forms of allowances while in office is common knowledge in Nigeria and it is not reasonably open to question. It is also common knowledge that many of them after an office tenure of between 3 to 8 years become stupendously wealthy, exhibiting mind-blowing opulence and splendour. Yet these office holders insist on being paid severance allowances for holding such offices…these political appointees and elected public office holders who do not work as long and as hard as the career Civil Servants quickly get paid, huge severance allowances upon leaving office in addition to the huge wealth they acquired while holding such offices and without having been subjected to any contributory pension schemes.
It is not morally right to pay an elected public officer or political appointee pension and gratuity or severance allowance for holding such an office for 3 to 8 years as the case may be….the fact that the right is provided for in the Constitution and thereby made a constitutional right, does not make it morally right. It is an absurdity in a democratic Constitution'[2]
3.0 CRITIQUE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CASE
As much as the view by the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal seems morally right and logical, I for one feel constrained to tow in the reasoning of the Justice of the Court of Appeal. It is my view that the payment of severance allowances and pensions to political office holders/appointees is equally right and justifiable in a morally upright country especially to political office holders/appointees who have contributed immensely and selflessly to the service of the nation. To further give life to this stance, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – the grund norm and the fons et origo–expressly provides for the payment of pensions and other benefits accruable to political office holders/appointees once they leave office. Under Section 84(5)[3] it provides that:
‘any person who has held office as president or vice-president shall be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to the annual salary of the incumbent president or vice-president. Provided that such a person was not removed from office by the process of impeachment or for breach of any provision of the Constitution’.
The Constitution also provides for political appointees under Section 291 thereof.
It is trite that the letters of the Constitution are sacred and sacrosanct and should be respected to the latter[4], and that every person is subject to the Constitution[5]. In so far as the Constitution has expressly provided for these benefits to political office holders/appointees, it gives it life and backing, and the Court of Appeal is bound to follow it strictosensu as its duty is to interpret the letters of the Constitution in its literal form. The fact that political office holders/appointees are paid huge emoluments during their tenure of office should not in any way, hinder them from getting these Constitutionally-provided benefits.
It is crucial, at this point, to draw a comparison as to the payment of severance allowances and pensions to political office holders/appointees in other countries with what is obtainable in Nigeria to see if there is any justifiability of such payments.
In the United States, under the Former President Act[6], by law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff, office expenses, medical care, health insurance, and Secret Service protection. They receive a pension equal to the salary of the Cabinet Secretary (Executive Level 1). A former president’s spouse may also be paid a lifetime annual pension of $20,000 if they relinquish any other statutory pension. However, Congress men are not paid for life, they have to save for retirement like everyone else though they have very generous retirement benefits.[7]
In South Africa, under their legislation[8], political office holders/appointees such as members of parliament and political office are also provided with payments for life and other retirement benefits. Various other countries[9] have statutory provisions that make for payment of pensions and retirement benefits to political office holders/appointees. Thus, this crystalizes the justifiability of pensions to political office holders/appointees in Nigeria vis-à-vis what is obtainable in other jurisdictions of the world.
At this juncture, it will be imperative to reproduce the National Industrial Court’s decision on this very issue in the case of Incorporated Trustees of Human Development & 39 Ors v Governor of Abia State & 73 Ors[10]critiquing this very Court of Appeal’s view vis:
‘ when the Court of Appeal decried the situation where despite the huge monthly perquisites of office and opulence of political office holders, and the fact that in contrast civil servants who are subjected to contributory pension schemes with many others are not even paid their pensions…this cannot be read as the Court of Appeal overruling the payment of pensions, gratuity or severance allowances to political office holders…the point is, it is not for the Court to repeal a law validly made under the Constitution’
4.0 CONCLUSION
In carefully critiquing the decision of the Court of Appeal in line with the express provision of the Constitution making for such payments, and with a comparative analysis of what is obtainable in other jurisdictions in line with moral law and good logic, I am of the fervent stance that such payments are not morally wrong in any society but rather helps for better efficiency and determination to serve. The very reason that political office holders/appointees are paid huge salaries during their tenure should not be a factor to stop them benefitting from their constitutionally-provided rights.
REFERNCES
[1] (2019) 3 AAQR 1
[2]Pg 19-21 of the Judgement of the Court.
[3]CFRN 1999
[4]INEC v Musa (2013) 3 NWLR (pt.806) 72.
[5]CFRN 1999 S 1(1)
[7]Liz Smith, ‘Can Senators be paid for life after they retire’ <https://smartasset.com/retirement/congress-retirement-plans>accessed June 9th2021.
[8]Members of Parliament and Political Office-Bearers Pension Scheme Act.
[9]Like the UK, Canada etc.
[10]Unreported suit No: NICN/ABJ/47/2019 delivered on the 23rd January, 2020.