Furore over legislators’ pay: Matters arising
Like a bad coin which draws more attention to itself than the rest in a bag, so the issue of funds for legislators in the National Assembly – comprising senators and member of the House of Representatives, recurs endlessly in the public space. And given the lean times the country has fallen into, any instance […]
National Assembly
Like a bad coin which draws more attention to itself than the rest in a bag, so the issue of funds for legislators in the National Assembly – comprising senators and member of the House of Representatives, recurs endlessly in the public space. And given the lean times the country has fallen into, any instance or situation that features the outflow of huge sums of money, easily attracts attention. It is in that light that the animated, regular attention which is directed at the financial operations of the National Assembly seems in place.
Currently trending are several tales and even litigations on the matter with some bordering on truths, other on half-truths and yet others on bare-faced lies, about the emoluments and allowances of these legislators in the nation’s central legislature. Unfortunately or otherwise, the matter of remuneration and other perquisites of office for state legislators, hardly feature in conversation circles in the public domain due to the fact that such officers are usually firmly quarantined in the grip of respective state governors, with discussions on their working conditions foreclosed by the sway of the latter.
With respect to the funding of the federal legislators, topical is the dividing line between their legitimate salaries and the operating costs of their enterprise as legislators. While the official monthly take home pay is statutorily pegged by the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) at about N 1,200,000.00, there is a huge outcry in several instances over various sums credited to them which fall under the omnibus accounting heading as ‘running costs’.
Against the backdrop of the deluge of unsavoury tales of massive sleaze in the processes of public service at all tiers of governance across the country, it remains easy to lump together the good, bad and ugly instances of disbursement of public largesse as unavoidably suspect. It is in the same context that the difference between the two payments under consideration may not be obvious to the uninitiated, even as such exist.
Yet the difference is accentuated by the situation whereby elected legislators in the National Assembly as well as the state assemblies and even members of local government legislative councils, wear two caps on one head. With the first cap, they are bona-fide public officers who qualify for due remuneration with statutorily approved salaries and allowances for serving the public interest. With the other cap, they constitute the representatives of their respective statutory constituencies, whereby they remain the official channels for contacting and dealing with their bases. In this latter context legislators are not just individual officers but the very political leaders and icons of their respective constituencies. This is the position of the nation’s Constitution and the law. In the same context, for the National Assembly, the Constitution grants it the powers to regulate its own business, given its status as the eye, ear and mouth of the people, and, therefore, the primary institution that represents various constituencies of the country. This condition also accentuates the power and responsibility of the legislature as the primary agent for change in the country, with the only power it normally cannot exercise is that of changing a man to woman and vice versa.
It is against this backdrop of the foregoing, that Nigerians need to bother less about the perquisites of office of legislators and be concerned more with the functions and responsibilities of the legislative institutions, as such is the proverbial big, unwieldy elephant in the room. That is if the principle of the end justifying the means shall be actualised with respect to moving Nigeria’s democracy to the next level.
In the light of the political realities of Nigeria, the extant presidential system democracy is intrinsically an expensive venture, given the need to provide adequate political liberties for the various constituent groups comprising majority and minority entities, to participate in governance without let or hindrance. As envisaged by the Constitution, the present aspect provides for more liberties for these constituent groups in the country than any other system of government; and is in particular superior to the now over-hyped Westminster system which some are advocating its return, as the needed direction to restructure the country.
Meanwhile, even as it is welcome to bother about the challenges of the presidential system of government – especially with respect to its affordability for the country, it also needs to be considered how faithfully or otherwise, the country and its leaders have complied with its processes. Afterall, contrary to the Westminster model which was imposed on Nigeria by its colonial overlord the Britain, the Presidential system was willingly adopted by the country after a painstaking process by a panel led by Dr Sylvanus Cookey which sampled and harnessed the trending political conversations across the country.
Ostensibly, while the queries over the operational costs of the legislature engage public attention, they cannot be divorced from the tacit marginalisation of the institution being a fallout from the past instances of truncation of democratic rule and shutting down of the legislature by the military. It is not, therefore, implausible that of the three arms of government, the frequent mishaps of the legislature may have vitiated its sanctity among not a few Nigerians, including several serving and former legislators.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it is still a big plus for the country that the legislature has consolidated over time, with what is left being the process of continually reforming it in line with public expectation.
In this respect lies the consideration that further reforms of the institution should gravitate more towards increased powers of control over the legislature and legislators by the bureaucracy. That will guarantee better administrative oversight and audit control of the funding and related operations of the institution.