Opinion

Imperative of harmonised retirement age of staff of legislative houses in Nigeria bill

4 Mins read

“It (Bill) seeks to enhance professionalism and ensure the transfer of knowledge and experience by top level management staff who is at the verge of exiting the system”— Hon. Mohammed Tahir Monguno (Chief Whip of the House of Representatives).

When the Bill seeking ‘Harmonised Retirement Age of Staff of Legislative Houses in Nigeria, 2021”, scaled through the first reading in the House of Representatives, on Tuesday, June 29th, 2021, the stability of the Legislatures in Nigeria came into focus.

Recently, the same Bill passed the second reading, and the next stage now, is for the stakeholders to make their inputs. Talking of stakeholders, the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria PASAN (National, Zonal & chapters) and the various State Houses of Assemblies must have to make their much expected contributions.

It is heartwarming that the PASAN National and chapters are the one spearheading and working round the clock about this fantastic Bill that will act as a great stabilizing agent for the staff of the Legislature all over the Federation.

In sponsoring this much wanted and awaited bill, the Chief Whip of the House of Representatives, Hon. Mohammed Tahir Monguni, has written his name in gold letters, because the Legislative arm of government in Nigeria, needs absolute stability, to carry out its constitutional duty vibrantly to the electorates in Nigeria.

There is no doubt that the Legislature requires strong capacity and robust knowledge to pilot and stabilize it bureaucratic system. Strengthening the bureaucracy of the Legislative Houses in Nigeria, lies more in building institutional memory and developing career progression plan of the staff.

As a mass based public institution, and the closest to the people, the Legislature is undoubtedly the first point of call in the citizen inspired public policy development intervention matrix, therefore, there is need for modest improvement in the condition of service of staff.

Also, bearing in mind that the Legislature is not only very important towards the institutionalization of democracy and good governance, but is indeed the bedrock of any contemporary democracy and a critical factor towards its development and sustenance in any established democracy, to strengthen and reposition it, is laying a solid sustainable bureaucracy.

Because the Legislature also performs vital and valuable roles in the affairs of a functioning democracy, as the institution that links the government with the governed, this recent bill seeking to raise the retirement age of legislative staff from 60 to 65 years, and years of service from 40 to 45 years, as against the usual service years of 40 years is a welcome development.

We must not forget that the Legislature handles several other duties along with law making. This crucial arm of government scrutinize government actions, ranging from approval of government appointments to investigations and supervisory activities (Oversight).

The Legislature debate issues of national and public interest; pass resolutions for appropriate noting/ actions of the executive arm of government; it also has responsibility to propose changes to the country’s Constitution etc.

Looking at these catalogue of responsibilities that are at the door steps of the Legislature, it is only wise and proper that the Bill being sponsored by the Chief Whip of the House of Representatives, Hon. Mohammed Tahir Monguno be supported by all and sundry.

The Acting National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), Comrade Tommy Etim Okon, in a media chat had said that the organization is already pushing the issue of upward review of age of service for civil servants from 60 to 65, and years of service from 40 to 45 years, with the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Comrade Okon, who cited the need to approve a restoration of leave policy for Directors and Permanent Secretaries, also mentioned general upward review of salary of civil servants, as well as other Labour related demands, in order to uplift them from the currently excruciating economic situation being experienced in the country.

It is heartwarming that President Muhammadu Buhari, who had in October 2020, during the World Teacher’s Day, approved a special salary scale and new retirement age for teachers, recently via an Executive Bill he sent to the Senate, sought to change years of service for teachers from 35 years to 40 years, and retirement age from 60 to 65 years.

The above coming from the President is commendable given the gigantic intellectuality naturally associated with the teachers; going forward on this same page, given the multi-purpose functions of the Legislature in Nigeria, it is only normal, fit and proper, that this Bill seeking tenure elongation for staff of Legislative staff in Nigeria, will be given the urgency and priority it deserves.

The five year extension of service for Legislative staff in Nigeria is the only avenue to guarantee transfer of practical experience and knowledge, by the top echelon of staff, who are on their way out yet few in numbers.

Am reliably informed that to pilot the National Assembly, for instance, it requires strong capacity building and knowledge-driven mechanism cum initiatives, instead of hiring retired staff as consultants.

It is only the tenure elongation, according to the Mohammed Tahir Monguno’s Bill, that will eliminates unnecessary additional cost and burden.

No doubt, the Mohammed Tahir Monguno’s Bill will, when it becomes law, will incredibly ginger and acts like a wonderful morale booster, to Legislative Staff across the country, to scale up their statutory duties.

Flowing from the above premise, it is baffling that Professor Abubakar Sulaiman, Director General of the Nigeria Institute for Legislative & Democratic Studies (NILDS), has shamelessly and unfortunately exposed himself, as an enemy of Legislative Staff across the country, via his recent outburst against this historic Bill presently in the House of Representatives.

Given Prof. Abubakar Sulaiman’s profuse dissertations in parliamentary matters, and present position in the business of National Legislature, one wonder what has come over him, to constitute himself as a road block to Legislative independence and welfare of the staff of the Legislature?

Why has this man chosen to throw dirt into the very Legislative soup, he has assiduously been cooking since he emerged as the Director General of NILDS? Why has Prof. Sulaiman behaving like a ‘bought man’ at this crucial time of his career?

Finally, having looked at the Mohammed Tahir Mongunu’s Bill, from many angles and parameters, it is very clear that when it eventually becomes a law, the Legislature In Nigeria will be entering a new chapter, in which the inherent uncommon intellectual capacity of its staff will be exhaustively tapped to the fullest.

And at the end of the day, the people of Nigeria, the electorates, will be far better for it; which is truly and wholly the essence of representative democracy.
Then, the likes of Professor Abubakar Sulaiman would bury their heads in perpetual shame!

• Igbotako is a human right activist, legislative scholar and author based in Abuja

SOurce: GUardian.ng

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com