“Humanity is lost because people have abandoned using their conscience as their compass” …Suzy Kassem
Alh. Ataba Sani Omolori, Clerk to the National Assembly has been in the middle of service year elongation crisis in the nation’s federal legislature. Having enjoyed undue and irregular promotion in the National Assembly in 1992, one wonders why the present Clerk to the National Assembly would be embroiled in such crisis.
Official documents in public space show that before his appointment with the National Assembly in January, 1991, Sani Ataba Omolori began his civil service career in 1985 at Ajaokuta Steel Company Ltd, where he later transferred his services to the defunct National Electric Power Authority in 1989.
In 1991, he again, transferred his services as Legal Officer on Grade Level 9 in the defunct National Electric Power Authority to Principal Legal Officer on Grade Level 12 in the National Assembly. Interestingly, barely 20 months in the Service of the National Assembly, rather than prepare for confirmation examinations, in the case of a fresh appointment, a memo dubbed “Confidential” and emanating from Dr. Adamu Fika (Permanent Secretary of the National Assembly at the time) promoted Sani Omolori from Grade Level 12 to Grade Level 14 and directed that he acted as Assistant Director on Grade Level 15 as well as Head of Department of the Legal Department. Adamu Fika justified his actions by claiming that “in view of Mr. Sani-Omolori’s vast experience and pioneering role as Legal Draftsman for the National Assembly coupled with the fact that he has almost ten years post-call experience…”, he should be promoted accordingly. The use of the words, “almost ten years post-call experience” signals the shady intent of promoting someone who completed his NYSC in August 1984 and had spent only 8 years in the public service to the rank of Assistant Director July, 1992.
Conventionally, a legal officer, who commenced work in the public service in 1985 would require 15 years to get to Grade Level 14 and 18 years to get to Assistant Director. It is yet unfounded that being the most senior staff and “pioneering role” in the department at the time, Sani Omolori would have easily acted in the capacity of head of department without having to undergo undue and unconventional accelerated promotion to Assistant Director.
ALSO READ: OPINION: LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FINANCIAL AUTONOMY: OUR PRESIDENT IS STILL ALIVE
In total disregard to the responsibility of the Federal Civil Service Commission, the action of a mere memo directing this new appointment of Mr. Sani-Omolori to Assistant Director in 1992 would make him the longest serving head of a Department. Sani Omolori remained in that capacity up until 2002 when he got promoted as a substantive Director. Ten years later, Sani Omolori was confirmed as Clerk to the House of Representatives where he went on to serve for over 5 years. Coincidentally, in 2016, the same Adamu Fika, now Chairman of the National Assembly Service Commission confirmed the appointment of Mr. Sani Ataba Omolori as substantive Clerk to the National Assembly. Ludicrously, his appointment letter carried concise inscriptions specifying that he shall serve as Clerk to the National Assembly for 5 years. Who does that? The man who is conscious of the timelines of the plan.
…Tenure Elongation Crisis in the National Assembly.
At the twilight of the 8th National Assembly, both Houses passed a joint resolution ratifying the revised conditions of service for staff of the National Assembly submitted by the National Assembly Service Commission. The revised conditions of service contain an upward review of allowances with the inclusion of new ones. The approved document further review service years in the National Assembly from 35years in service and 60 years of age to 40years in the National Assembly Service and 65 years of age, respectively.
Incidentally, arising from an industrial action just over two year ago, this status of things was meant to up lift the hopes of a downcast community of parliamentary staff who have continually argued for implementation of the Consolidated Salary Scale, trainings and improved welfare packages. This was not to be, as a caveat subjecting the financial aspects of the new condition of service to availability of funds would mean that more than one year after the passage of the revised conditions of service, staff are yet to either enjoy the 15% increase in their peculiar allowances or Rent subsidy. On the other hand, since the proclamation of an effective date by former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, those who would have retired have continued to stay put. The implementation of additional service years in the National Assembly commenced with the absence of membership composition of the National Assembly Commission and without regards to the implication on the nation’s treasury on one hand as well as pension administration to staff of the National Assembly on the other hand. Within the workings of the Service itself, additional years to the Service could mean putting in place, modalities by the National Assembly Service Commission for the smooth take-off and operations of the new regime. Curiously, the question is been sought by observers on the source of funding which finances the payment of salaries of those who should have left the service ordinarily.
In February 2020, the new Commission headed by Engr. Ahmed Kadi Amshi was approved by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Upon its inauguration, the Commission set to task to review all the activities that took place between the period, the tenure of the previous Commission expired and the assumption of office of the new members.
Subsequently, various committees were established including the Abubakar Tutare led Committee, charged with the mandate to assess activities surrounding the recently passed conditions of service for staff of the National Assembly.
Drama however started when a section of interested parties got wind of the recommendations of the report of the Committee. According to some insiders who pleaded anonymity, the Committee argued against service year elongation in the National Assembly. It purportedly premised its decision on the fact that the immediate past Commission headed by Adamu Fika never included provisions for the review of Service years in the proposal sent to the National Assembly. Further investigation revealed that only the House of Representatives version of the document contained the provisions for service year review, thereby triggering the question of how the provisions came about.
More revelations from excerpts of the correspondence of the Chairmen of PASAN National Assembly and National Assembly Service Commission to Presiding Officers of the National Assembly indicate that “as a matter of fact, the issue of service year elongation for staff of the National Assembly was first introduced on the floor of the House of Representatives in form of a Bill in 2018, titled: Harmonised Retirement Age of the Staff of the National Assembly Service Bill, 2018 (HB 1270). After the First Reading of the Bill, the Union (PASAN) opposed its passage in view of its potential dangers to the service of the National Assembly. Hence, the Bill never saw the light of the day. Surprisingly, upon the forwarding of the proposal which comprised of a review and insertion of other allowances in the condition of service by the Commission to both Houses, some highly placed individuals in the National Assembly with vested interest decided to smuggle the 5-year tenure elongation plot into the House of Representatives’ version of the revised condition of service, after the tenure of the then Commission had expired.
Whereas, there are a whole lot of points standing against service year extension for staff of the National Assembly, one germane point must be brought to fore. The proponents of the 5-year service extension at the time had argued that it would enable the National Assembly to retain skilled, experienced, and knowledgeable hands in the Service. To the contrary, that argument has fallen flat, because the training and retraining of staff meant to guarantee skills, experience and knowledge is absolutely lacking in the National Assembly workplace. The pertinent question to ask at this juncture is; how does the National Assembly intend to retain skilled, experienced and knowledgeable hands when training has completely collapsed?”
From the above, it is clear that the first attempt recognized the fact that only a law passed by the National Assembly can review Service years in any part of the Public Service and not resolutions as is the case with the National Assembly conditions of Service.
…Power Play and Usurpation of Powers of the National Assembly Service Commission
Information from reliable sources suggest that the National Assembly Service Commission recently considered the reports of its committees on various subjects and copies of its decisions submitted to both Houses of the National Assembly. In a swift reply the House of Representatives informed the Commission of its position that the 9th House of Representatives cannot rescind the 8th Assembly Resolution on the Retirement Age of the National Assembly. Inquisitively, the content of the letter was first issued through the office of the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, but was letter countered on the grounds of communication channel by the Special Adviser on Media to the Speaker. Eventually, a correspondence with the same content emanating from the Clerk House of Representatives with reference number: NASS/HR/LEG/14/3/30 confirmed this position of the leadership of the House of Representatives. It is thus, worrisome that this position of the House of Representatives clearly confers on itself, the powers to fix conditions of service for staff of the National Assembly. Having repeatedly maintained that the National Assembly Service Commission had at no time propose to review service years in the National Assembly, the communication of the Commission to the Presiding Officers of the National Assembly would have been a mere informative material which ought not to be subject to debate or further instructions. In any ways, one would also imagine that while the House has continued to repeal and amend laws made by previous National Assembly, its decision not to rescind the decision of the previous Assembly, given that it was done in error, infers more than meets the eyes.
For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of Section 19(1) of the National Assembly Service Commission Act, 2014 are explicit as to who has the powers to fix conditions of service for staff of the National Assembly. Section 19 (1) of the National Assembly Service Commission Act, 2014 empowers the National Assembly Service Commission to make staff regulations relating to Condition of Service for staff of the National Assembly including fixing of salaries and allowances. Consequently, in exercising its powers of appointment, promotion and disciplinary control (including dismissal of staff), Section 6 (8) of the Act further provides that the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any authority or persons.
The position of the House of Representatives in this regard, rather contradicts the motive for enforcing laws enacted by the National Assembly and further illustrates the harmful nature of interference by the political leadership in the National Assembly on activities of the bureaucracy. It is gathered that the National Assembly Service Commission remains adamant that there was never a time it proposed a review of service years to any House of the National Assembly for approval. The action of the House of Representatives thus, instigates mixed feelings. It is a clear usurpation of the Commission’s mandate. It is an attempt to force the Commission into accepting what is not their making.
The federal legislature has been in the news recently, for not too good reasons. These are trying times for the National Assembly. The leadership of the National Assembly must jettison anti-people policies and work hard to change the negative toga currently worn by its members. Charity they say begins at home.
*** Tunji Adigun, a public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja.
