Politics
Still On Life Pension For Politicians
In recent times, some state houses of assembly moved for the process of enacting legislation to provide monthly life pensions for legislators.
Houses of Assembly in Kano and Bayelsa States have even passed a bill to that effect and the bills are awaiting governors’ assent.
Bayelsa House of Assembly proposes N500, 000 monthly pension to the Speakers of the assembly, Deputy Speakers; N200, 000 each and members N100, 000 each, although Governor Seriake Dickson of the State has yet to assent to the bill.
Kano State House of Assembly has a similar bill awaiting Governor Abdulahi Ganduje’s assent, while Ekiti State House of Assembly is reported to have been working in that regard.
Although none of the state governors has approved the bill, the proposed law continues to attract reactions from the public.
A large segment of the public notes that any push to make the bill for life pension for political office holders will prompt other states and Federal Government to do same to the detriment of the masses.
A stalwart of the Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party, Mr Sesugh Akume, says it is inappropriate for some political office holders to institute a pension scheme for themselves after leaving office.
He explains that political positions ought to be a privilege and opportunity to serve the people and not as a career one can retire with a pension.
“The idea of severance packages and life pensions for elected officials is wrong and without merit,’’ he observes.
In his view, an economist, Prof. AbdulGafar ljaiya, says paying life pension to political office holders will cripple the anti corruption campaign of the present administration.
Ijaiya, from University of Ilorin, insists that political office holders, irrespective of years they occupy offices, do not qualify for pensions under the constitution.
“The political office holders taking pensions are thieves and corrupt officers who are retarding the nation’s economic growth and development,’’ he says.
Ijaiya is of the opinion that majority of the politicians has retired from their primary job where they draw pensions.
Similarly, financial experts, Mr Adetunji Adepeju and Mr Samson Olalere, argue that granting life pension to political office holders will put undue pressure on the economy.
“Life pension for political office holders in Nigeria is not needed, especially if you look at the executive.
“The maximum time you can spend in office is eight years, do you want to compare that with civil servants some of whom spend 35 years in the course of their career.
“The economic realities in Nigeria cannot support such idea of life pension,’’ Olalere says.
Adepeju says, “rather than take pension from government coffers after leaving office, let political office holders engage in pension scheme and draw from their monthly income.’’
However, the Branch Manager of Leadway Assurance Company in Ibadan, Mr Adekunle Akinpelu, observes that political office holders can also benefit from contributory pension scheme if while in office they sign up with pension fund administrators.
But the Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners in Oyo, Mr Olusegun Abatan, insists that life pensions for political office holders are immoral and ungodly.
“How can a politician that serves for four years want to get life pension when a civil servant that works for 35 years is owed 60 months of unpaid pension arrears,’’ Abatan asks.
In his view, the Chairman of Nigeria Union of Pensioners in Ondo Chief Raphael Adetuwo, advises that government should rather empower the Revenue Mobilisations, Allocation and Fiscal Commission to place all political office holders in the country on the same salary scale as civil servants.
He says:”The humongous salaries and allowances of public office holders, especially senators and House of Representatives members need to be reviewed.
“How can these people be collecting such huge money in a country where 80 per cent of the population are battling to meet their daily need?’’
A salary Grade Level 15 civil servant at the Okitipupa Local Government Council , Mr Obadele Meroyi, observes that “most of the political office holders who possess mere school certificate, are collecting salaries, allowances and packages far better than a professor and a salary Grade Level 17 civil servant.
“Giving them life pension automatically means legalising corruption and paying people who are doing absolutely nothing more than those doing the real job’’, he observes.
However, Assemblyman Tunbosun Oyintiloye of the Osun House of Assembly notes that before the bill for life pension for political office holders can be passed, it is necessary to find out what are the best international practices in developed democracies.
According to the lawmaker, such law might be a welcome development to the beneficiaries but there is need to be cautious of what its impact will be on the economy.
But the Head of Political Science Department, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Prof. Olajire Bamisaye, says placing political office holders on life pension will have a drag on the national economy.
Chief Executive Officer, Active Support for Rural People Initiative, a non-governmental organisation in Kebbi, Malam Ibrahim Ngaski, explains that “the implication of approving pension for politicians is that the funds meant for developing rural communities will be diverted to their pension payment.
“Rather than clamour for undeserved pension, political office holders should help to sanitise existing pension schemes so that contributors will be able to access their money immediately after retirement.’’
A civil servant in Kano, Malam Ali Sani,warns that any attempt to introduce life pension for political office holders in the state will be resisted, while Malam Hassan Aminu, a civil servant in Kano, advises Nigerians to move against the plan.
Former Governor of old Sokoto, Malam Yahaya Abdulkarim, recalls that government funds are meant for development and ought to be channelled through proper ways that will facilitate development in all sectors not on pensions for politicians.
In his view, a lecturer at Umaru Musa Yar’Adua University, Katsina, Dr Suleiman Lawal, observes that any attempt to implement pension for politicians is injustice and will end up creating serious financial crisis in the affected states.
Further to this, Centre for Change Initiative, a civil society organisation, describes the proposed life pensions for political office holders as an imposition of the burden of their lifetime survival on innocent taxpayers.
The president of the group, Dr Joe Okei-Odumakin, insists that such pensions for lawmakers will take a toll on the welfare of the people.
Expressing concern on the development, Chairman, Lagos Civil Service Union, Mr Laide Bakare, advises that proposed laws in favour of pension for politicians ought to be discouraged.
“Whoever has served the people should leave honourably and go back to his job or other jobs; serving Nigeria for eight years and demanding a life pension is highly insensitive to the plight of Nigerians.
“Political office holders such as governors are contracted to do their assignments through elections and so, they should not enjoy pensions like regular civil servants,’’ he says.
Also, Director, Centre for Pension Rights Advocacy, Mr Takor Ivor, observes that the proposed life pension for political office holders is inappropriate.
He calls on the legislators at the federal and state levels to rather propose bills that can advance the country’s socio-economic development.
The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Lagos State Chapter, as well, calls on the public to rise up against the campaign for life pension for politicians.
“In any state where this is passed into law, the people of that state should rise and protest and the entire Nigerian masses should rise against such; it is a scam of the highest order.
Irrespective of the critics’ argument, concerned Nigerians observe that question as to whether or not life pensions should be granted to politicians is still being discussed among stakeholders in the South-South geopolitical zone of the country.
A lecturer in the Department of Economics, University of Calabar, Dr Peter Uwem, therefore, calls on state governors in Nigeria to refuse assent to any bill on life pension for politicians initiated by lawmakers.
“How can they ever imagine a life pension for themselves when some states cannot afford to clear the meagre amount of pensions and gratuities owed their civil servants?
“Any state governor that approves life pension for lawmakers is calling for crisis because what these politicians earn while in office is enough to take care of them.
“Some of them spend 12 years with jumbo allowances throughout, why then should they still be asking for life pension,’’ he asks.
“I see no reason why politicians who serve for a short period of time should be given life pension when compared to civil servants.
“Government should make political offices, especially the legislature to be a part time, this would be the best for our growing political nation, Mrs Esther Okon, a civil servant in Cross River, also observes.
Similarly, a pension fund manager, pleading anonymity, expresses dissatisfaction over moves by some legislators to make laws allowing political office holders in Nigeria to be entitled to life pensions.
He describes the proposal as obnoxious, noting that such pension bills, especially the one recently moved by legislators in Bayelsa, if passed into law, will further drain the country of its scarce resources.
A pensioner, Mr Forsebry Ere, observes that the move by the Bayelsa lawmakers to have life pension is uncalled for.
“The first thing to consider is that political office is not the regular 35-year civil service job or attaining 60 years of age in service before retirement.
“What should bother the lawmakers ought to be embarking on developmental projects such as primary healthcare and improvement on public schools, among others,’’ Ere says.
In his opinion, a civil servant in Bauchi, Mr Muhammad Ningi, explains that although the constitution mandated politicians to make laws, moving for life pension for political office holders is unpatriotic.
Instead of pushing for life pension for politicians, a pensioner in Yola, Bello Joseph, advises politicians, as representatives of the people, to impress it on government at all levels to settle the entitlements of pensioners.
However, retired staff of Dutse Local Government Education Department, Malam Muhammad Barau, has a different opinion.
Kayode Olaitan
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
