Connect with us

Opinion

Away With Contributory Pension In Rivers State

Published

2 years ago

on

To say the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) leaves much to be desired by public servants in Rivers State, is a mild expression of an exceedingly ugly situation. Retirees under the Contributory Pension Act are suffering because they are denied several years of benefits following non contribution of counterpart fund by employers for the period preceding the implementation of the amended 2014 Act. In 2004, retirees were compulsorily asked to join Annuity operated by Insurance company or programmed withdrawal under the Contributory Pension Scheme operated by Pension Fund Administrators under the control of PENCOM. By virtue of 2014 amended Act, the ugly narrative of retirees has not changed.
The obnoxious Contributory Pension Scheme denies retirees having greater share of lump sum after retirement and dispenses a paltry monthly pension to retirees across board under this scheme. Mr John Paago (not his real names) served the Federal Government of Nigeria from July 15, 1981 and retired in July 15, 2016 on salary Grade Level 14, having worked for a mandatory period of 35 years and attained the maximum age of 60 years. For all the years he put in, the total balance standing to his credit was N6,745,823.34. Of this amount,  he was paid a meagre 25 per cent which amounted to N1,686,455.84 while the balance of 75 per cent was retained by his Pension Fund Administrators for their  investment in capital market and other large institutions with high returns which is never added to retirees paltry monthly pension payment while still alive.  Paago receives N26,703.15 every month as Pension since 2016 till now despite the huge profits declared every year under Contributory Pension Scheme. No doubt, the monthly pension given to Mr Paago cannot buy a loaf of bread at the price of N1000 currently per day for 30 days.
Unfortunately, every day prices of goods and services are on the increase unprecedentedly, while workers and retirees under the old scheme – Defined Benefit Scheme had their salaries and pension increased across all levels, the Contributory Pension Scheme retirees are abandoned to their fate. It is pertinent to say that retirees under the Contributory Pension Scheme face the same adverse socio-economic challenges like their counterparts under the Defined Benefit Scheme   Though the Contributory Pension Scheme was designed to remedy the alleged deficiencies and inadequate funding of the Defined Benefit Scheme, (DBS) by pooling funds from employers and employees’ contributions to Pension Funds Custodians, retirees under the Scheme, have not fared better than those who retired under the DBS. Conversely, the implementation of the Contributory Pension is a far cry from what its proponents lulled employees to believe. Complaints ranging from under payment of retirees under the Scheme, despite several years of service (some of whom served 35 mandatory years), corruption, non compliance of State governments and other employers to provisions of the  Reform Act, 2014, characterise implementation of the Scheme, which Labour leaders in the country describe as anti-workers and retirees welfare.
Dissatisfied with the Scheme, the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria appealed to the Federal Government to scrap the scheme, describing it as a “huge fraud”. The Present Contributory Pension Policy of the Federal Government should be scrapped. We discovered lately that the pension  policy is a fraud on workers”, posited Yusuf Emmanuel, Chairman-General, Ministry of Defence Unit 2, Lagos outstations. In the same vein, the River State Chairman of Nigeria’s Mother Labour Unions – Nigerian Civil Service Union also appealed to the Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara to “outrightly repeal” the Contributory Pension Scheme in Rivers State, because “It is not in the interest of Civil Servants”. Comrade Chuks Osummah, the Rivers State Chairman of the Nigeria Civil Service Union, who made the appeal at the event to mark the Union’s 111 years of existence in Nigeria, expressed worry over the fate of workers who will retire under the Contributory Pension Scheme.
“We are calling on the Executive Governor of Rivers State to abolish the Contributory Pension Act as it is not in the interest of Rivers State Civil Servants”, a worried Osummah said. The fears of public/civil servants are not unfounded because though over 25 States of the Federation have adopted the Scheme in principle by enacting relevant legislation, only six States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory — Abuja, have fully complied with the provisions of the extant laws on the Pension Reform Act. Full compliance and implementation of the Scheme has remained an uphill task denting the integrity of the scheme and its purported benefits for workers in the public, private and informal sectors the scheme was designed to cover. It is also evident that while some State governments deduct and remit workers’ contribution, the states have failed to contribute their counterpart fund to the scheme; this violates provision of Contributors’ right as enshrined in Section 4(1) the Pension Reform Act 2014. The Section provides that as an employee’s right, the employer shall contribute a minimum of 10 percent of the employee’s monthly emolument to his/her Pension Fund Administrator. The employer will also deduct at source a minimum of eight percent of the worker’s emoluments and pay to their Fund Administrator.
By the deficiency of State governments and other employers to make their counterpart contributions, the scheme cannot guarantee security for the welfare of the workers on retirement. The fate of employees, especially those working before the enactment and implementation, seems to hang on the balance; an aura and premonition of uncertainty on the seamless disbursement of what is legitimately their entitlement remains a puzzle, since they are likely to lose financial benefits for all the years they have served before the implementation of the Act in the State. The Scheme is intended to enable employees “Seamlessly transfer their accumulated funds when changing jobs, ensuring continuous growth and uninterrupted savings accumulator.” This mobility is aimed at empowering workers to “Pursue new opportunities without sacrificing their retirement security”.
The Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) covers: Public Servants working for the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), each of the 36 States of the Federation,  all the local government councils in Nigeria, employees in Private Sector organisations where there are three or more employees, and those in the informal sector which covers any economic activity or source of income that is not fully regulated by the government and other public authorities. But the Contributory Pension Scheme which is supposed to improve on the old defined benefit scheme is fraught with several hydra-headed and multi-dimensional problems that negate the welfare of workers and retirees. It is sound to argue that since the Pension Reforms Act was enacted in 2014, it should have excluded workers already employed in the Public Sector before 2014, when the law was enacted.
The effective date should not have been retrospective, or backdated because the effective date of implementation can shortchange workers employed before 2014. Workers still in active service should rise against the retrogressive scheme’s servitude . The Rivers State Government under the humane, compassionate and empathetic Governor Siminalayi Fubara should abrogate the Contributory Pension Act as applicable in Rivers State or defer the effective date of implementation to affect only workers who were employed into the Public Service after 2014. Those employed before 2014 should remain under the Defined Benefit Scheme. If the Contributory Pension Scheme was not without flaws, Former President Muhammadu Buhari would not have assented to National Assembly Workers Pension Scheme few days before he left office, thus removed National Assembly Workers from the Contributory Pension Scheme. Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do same for public servants in Rivers State.

By: Igbiki Benibo

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?  

Published

7 days ago

on

October 19, 2026

By

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate. 

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Opinion

Nigeria’s Anti-corruption Institutions: How Independent? 

Published

7 days ago

on

October 19, 2026

By

Quote:“Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment.”

Corruption remains one of Nigeria’s most persistent governance challenges. It affects public resources, weakens institutions, undermines service delivery and erodes citizens’ confidence in government. For decades, successive administrations have declared their commitment to fighting corruption, while agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have investigated and prosecuted numerous cases. Yet, beyond the number of arrests, investigations, prosecutions and convictions, there is a more fundamental question Nigeria must continue to confront: How independent and fair are the institutions entrusted with the fight against corruption?

This question matters because the success of anti-corruption agencies depends not only on their legal powers but also on the confidence citizens have in the manner those powers are exercised. An agency may possess extensive statutory authority, but if citizens believe that its decisions are influenced by political considerations, public confidence can suffer. The ICPC Act provides for the Commission’s independence, stating that in discharging its functions, it shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. This statutory provision is significant. An agency charged with investigating public officers and institutions must be sufficiently protected from improper influence if it is to perform its duties objectively.

Independence, however, should not be confused with freedom from accountability. Anti-corruption agencies must themselves operate within the law and remain subject to appropriate constitutional, judicial and institutional checks. The power to investigate and prosecute is enormous, and such power must always be exercised responsibly.This is where fairness becomes indispensable.  An effective anti-corruption campaign cannot be built on the perception that the law is tough on some people and gentle on others. Citizens should be able to believe that allegations are examined on their merits, evidence determines the direction of investigations, and suspects are afforded due process irrespective of their political status, social standing or connections.

The presumption of innocence must remain sacrosanct. Being investigated is not the same as being guilty, just as being charged is not the same as being convicted. The media and the public also have a responsibility to distinguish allegations from established facts. At the same time, fairness must not become an excuse for inaction. Where credible evidence exists, investigations should proceed without fear or favour. The challenge, therefore, is to build anti-corruption institutions whose actions are guided by law rather than personalities. Their credibility should not depend on who occupies political office, which party is in power or whose interests may be affected by an investigation. Nigeria has made important institutional investments in the fight against corruption.

The EFCC’s mandate covers the investigation and prosecution of economic and financial crimes, while the ICPC combines enforcement with preventive measures, including institutional reforms and anti-corruption initiatives within public institutions. But enforcement alone cannot eliminate corruption. Institutions must also close the loopholes that make corrupt practices possible. Procurement systems, financial controls, public-sector accountability and transparency mechanisms must be continually strengthened. Prevention is often more effective and less costly than waiting for corruption to occur before pursuing those involved. The judiciary also has an important role. Courts provide the constitutional and legal checks necessary to ensure that anti-corruption powers are exercised within the law.

Judicial oversight should not be regarded as an obstacle to the anti-corruption fight. Rather, it is part of what gives the fight legitimacy. There is also a need for greater transparency in the work of anti-corruption agencies. Nigerians deserve credible information about institutional performance, while sensitive investigations must be protected from unnecessary exposure. Regular publication of statistics, outcomes and institutional reports can help citizens distinguish between genuine enforcement and publicity. Ultimately, Nigeria does not need an anti-corruption campaign that is powerful only when directed at particular individuals. It needs institutions that remain strong regardless of who is being investigated. The real measure of progress should therefore go beyond the number of people arrested or prosecuted.

It should include whether public institutions are becoming more transparent, whether public funds are better protected and whether citizens believe that the law applies fairly. Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment. Independent institutions, impartial investigations, due process, judicial oversight and equal application of the law are not competing objectives. They are the pillars upon which a credible anti-corruption system must stand. If Nigeria succeeds in building institutions that can investigate without fear, prosecute without favour and operate without improper political interference, the country will have moved beyond the politics of anti-corruption to the establishment of a genuine culture of accountability. The ultimate victory over corruption will not come merely when more people are punished; it will come when Nigerian institutions become strong enough to make corruption increasingly difficult to commit, conceal and protect.

By:  Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Opinion

Nigeria On Age of Prosperity?

Published

3 weeks ago

on

October 5, 2026

By

Quote: “The real test of prosperity is not what government announces, but what the ordinary Nigerian can afford, earn and hope for.”
Nigeria’s 66th Independence Anniversary came with a message of hope from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: the country has moved beyond the difficult phase of economic reforms and is now entering what he called an “age of prosperity.” In his October 1 national broadcast, titled From Reform to Prosperity, the President argued that the painful economic measures of the past three years had corrected the country’s economic direction and laid the foundation for shared and widespread prosperity.
The declaration is significant because Nigerians have lived through an extraordinarily difficult period. The removal of fuel subsidy, exchange-rate reforms, rising living costs and other economic adjustments have placed considerable pressure on households and businesses. Government’s argument has consistently been that these sacrifices were necessary to correct structural weaknesses and prevent an even deeper economic crisis. President Tinubu therefore used his Independence Day address to announce what he sees as the beginning of the reward phase.
According to the President, the economic indicators now point in the right direction. He said Nigeria’s economy had grown by more than four per cent in 2026, while both the oil and non-oil sectors contributed to the growth. He also cited declining oil theft, falling inflation from its peak, rebuilt foreign reserves, greater stability in the foreign exchange market and more than $6 billion in non-oil export revenue in 2025.
But economic statistics, important as they are, must eventually be translated into household realities. For the average Nigerian, prosperity is not merely a matter of GDP growth, foreign reserves or export figures. It is the ability to buy food without anxiety, pay school fees without borrowing, travel at affordable cost, access healthcare, secure decent accommodation and earn an income that provides dignity.
This is where the President’s new promise becomes particularly important. He said prosperity would mean a Nigeria where farmers can cultivate their land safely, produce at lower cost and earn decent returns; where factories have reliable electricity; where businesses can obtain credit; where young people can find productive employment; and where food, transportation and education become more affordable.
That vision places production at the centre of the prosperity agenda. Nigeria cannot permanently consume its way out of poverty. The country must produce more food, manufacture more goods, create more jobs and export more competitive products. This requires reliable electricity, good roads, efficient rail and port systems, accessible credit, security for farmers and investors, and an environment in which businesses can survive and expand.
The President’s emphasis on agriculture is therefore noteworthy. Nigeria has vast arable land and a large youthful population, yet food insecurity and high food prices remain major concerns. Expanding irrigation, mechanisation, access to inputs, storage and transportation could help reduce production and distribution costs if properly implemented. The challenge, however, will be moving from policy announcements to measurable results across the farming communities.
The same applies to employment. Nigeria’s youthful population can become an enormous economic advantage, but only if young people have opportunities to acquire relevant skills and participate meaningfully in the economy. President Tinubu spoke of expanding digital connectivity, supporting industries, using domestic gas to power factories and helping Nigerian businesses grow.
These are areas that deserve sustained attention because prosperity cannot be built on government spending alone. It must be driven by productive citizens, viable businesses, innovative entrepreneurs and industries capable of creating wealth and employment.
Yet, the transition from reform to prosperity must also recognise the millions of Nigerians who cannot afford to wait indefinitely for the benefits of future growth. The President acknowledged that many families still struggle with food, school fees, medical expenses and transportation. His administration therefore pointed to social support programmes, education loans, consumer credit and other interventions as bridges towards greater economic opportunity.
The question Nigerians will inevitably ask is: when will the promised prosperity become visible in their homes and communities?
That question should not be dismissed as impatience. It is the legitimate demand of citizens who have been asked to endure sacrifice in anticipation of better times. If reforms are to retain public confidence, their benefits must progressively become tangible. Lower production costs should ultimately mean lower prices. Increased investment should create jobs. Higher agricultural output should improve food availability. Economic growth should broaden opportunity rather than remain concentrated in statistics and balance sheets.
President Tinubu’s declaration that “the age of reform has done its work” therefore carries a heavy responsibility. The next phase must demonstrate that the sacrifices of Nigerians were not merely endured but converted into lasting national benefits.
Nigeria’s journey since independence has been marked by repeated promises of a better future. At 66, the country cannot afford another cycle in which hope rises with political declarations only to fade under the weight of everyday hardship. The promised age of prosperity must be measured by the quality of life of ordinary Nigerians.
The President has declared that Nigeria has passed through its own “Red Sea” and that the destination is now in sight. The road ahead must therefore be one of delivery, accountability and inclusion. Prosperity must reach the farmer in Rivers, the trader in Kano, the manufacturer in Lagos, the student in Enugu and the young entrepreneur in every part of Nigeria.
The age of prosperity, if it is to mean anything, must not remain a presidential phrase. It must become an experience Nigerians can see, feel and confidently pass on to the next generation.
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Trending