Appeal Court faults payment of severance allowances, pension to political office holders

The Court of Appeal has faulted the payment of either severance
allowance, pension or gratuity to political office holders and
political appointees, insisting that the practice was morally
wrong.

A three-man panel of the court, held that it as unjustifiable in
the face of the nation’s socio-economic reality for some few
politicians, who hold office for not more than eight-year, to
allocate huge public funds to themselves in the name of pension and
severance package while civil servants, who committed most of their
active years to the service of the nation are denied their
retirement benefits.

The Court of Appeal, Abuja said this in a judgment on an appeal
marked: CA/A/810/2017 filed by the Governor of Kogi State and three
others.

The appeal was on a decision given on October 10, 2017 by
Justice R. B. Hastrup of National Industrial Court (NIC) Lokoja in
a suit filed by some former political appointees in Kogi State, who
sought to compel the state government to pay them severance
allowances, gratuity, among others.

The suit marked: NICN/LKJ/03/2017, was filed by Chairman, Kogi
State Local Government Service Commission 2013 -2017, Alhaji Nuhu
Ahmed and members, who served in the capacity of Permanent members
II within the same period – M. O. Sule, Momoh Steven Azia, Michael
Nuhu Akeji, James Olusoji Olumorin and George Agbogun.

The appeal was against Justice Hastrup’s decision to order
parties to file pleadings rather than delivery judgment after
taking arguments on the originating summons and preliminary
objection raised by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal, in its lead judgment by Justice Emmanuel
Agim, said it was wicked and morally wrong for political office
holders and political appointees, who helped themselves to public
funds while in office, to claim entitlement to pension and
severance allowances.

Justice Agim said: “I must state here that the claimants’ claim
for payment of severance allowance, because the tenure of their
appointment has come to an end, is as unfounded as is morally
wrong.

“As I have held that their letters of appointment did not
stipulate their entitlement to such payment. They did not produce
any law or any document or instrument that entitles them to such
payment.

“The fact that elected pubic officeholders 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 is not reasonable to open question.

“It is also common knowledge that many of them after an office
tenure of between three to eight years become stupendously wealthy,
exhibiting mind-blowing opulence and splendor.

“Yet these office holders insist on being paid severance
allowance for holding such offices.

“Meanwhile, career civil servants, who have served this country
or their states or Local Governments, all their life, can hardly
collect their pensions and gratuity when retired.

“They are now being subjected to contributory pension schemes in
which they contribute part of their monthly meagre salaries that
are always paid in arrears while in service, to be able to earn
pension and gratuity upon retirement.

“The 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 three to eight years as the case may
be.

“It cannot be justified in the context of our present social
realities it amounts to gross social injustice.”

Justice Agim faulted Justice Hastrup’s decision to order
pleadings instead of dismissing the suit, owing to the plaintiffs’
failure to prove their case.

“The reasons the trial court gave for ordering a retrial, by
pleading and the oral evidence of witnesses, are that the
affidavits of both sides raise substantial issues and dispute of
facts or contentions issues as to the payment or non payment of
arrears of salaries and whether the claimants were among the duly
verified staff and appointees that have been paid their arrears of
salaries and that the reliefs claimed for cannot be resolved by
affidavit evidence alone with pleadings and the testimonies of
witnesses.

“These reasons are not correct. There is no substantial dispute
of facts between the affidavits of both sides on the factual basis
for the action and the reliefs claimed for.

“Both affidavits agree on the fact that the respondents were
appointed as Chairman and permanent members respectively, of Kogi
State Local Government Service Commission.

“The respondents herein, as claimants, in their originating
summons, claimed for the sum of ”$5,420,000.00 as total of the
various amounts of money due to them as arrears of salaries for 17
months, four years leave bonuses and severance payment for the end
of the tenure of their appointments.

“The monetary value of each entitlement is particularised in the
originating summons. But there Is no evidence, in the affidavits in
support of the originating summons, stating the exact amount each
claimant was earning as monthly salary.

“There is no evidence in the said affidavits showing the
allowances or other emoluments the claimants were entitled to by
virtue of their appointments.”

Justice Agim however, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that
the appellants filed to first obtain the leave of the court before
it commenced the appeal.

Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya and Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson, who
were also on the panel agreed with the lad judgment, delivered on
May 20, 2019.

Other appellants in the case are the Secretary to Kogi State
Government, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice,Kogi
State and Kogi State Local Government Service Commission.