Law officers demand ‘peculiar allowances’

The gathering was at the session on harmonisation of salaries and peculiar allowances of law officers organised by LOAN in consultation with the federal Ministry of Justice on Thursday June 5, 2014, at the Olusegun Obasanjo hall of the ministry in Abuja. LOAN is the umbrella body for all law officers in the Chambers of the […]

The gathering was at the session on harmonisation of salaries and peculiar allowances of law officers organised by LOAN in consultation with the federal Ministry of Justice on Thursday June 5, 2014, at the Olusegun Obasanjo hall of the ministry in Abuja.
 LOAN is the umbrella body for all law officers in the Chambers of the Attorney – General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, irrespective of rank, age or position.  Abdulkadir Yusuf Abdullahi Esq is the 1st vice president and the Federal Ministry of Justice (FMJ) branch’s chairman while the secretary is Barrister Godwin Iheabunike.
Some of those who attended the session included former AGF Kanu Agabi SAN, Prof. Dakas Dakas (SAN) and Prof. Tawfiq Ladan.
The purpose of the session was to mainstream the issue of harmonisation and to seek the support of stakeholders for the speedy harmonisation of the salaries and emoluments of the law officers in the FMJ and its parastatals with those of their counterparts in the federal judiciary.
The session, according to the organisers, could be the last straw which is capable of breaking the camel’s back.
There is consensus of opinion amongst stakeholders in the justice sector on the need to improve the conditions of service of personnel in the sector as they are presently said to be poor and inadequate.
Although the AGF, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke SAN, is also desirous that LOAN members have better salary, unfortunately, he cannot pay LOAN from his pocket.
According to Pius Akutah Gbongbon, the plight of Nigerian law officers is deteriorating by the day.
The justice sector reforms’ strategic framework dated August 15, 2011 produced by the office of the AGF/Minister of Justice, says the transformation agenda “recognises that the administration of justice in Nigeria is in need of reforms; not reforms for the sake of it but because Nigerians want a more effective and transparent system of justice which is accessible to every citizen.
The payment of consolidated salaries to magistrates which was proposed in 1989 by the then AGF and approved by the then president was not extended to law officers in the FMJ. That exercise raised the salary of Chief Registrar from GL. 16 to GL. 17 among other things and in the process, the salary, emolument and condition of service of a Director in the FMJ began to compare badly with that of a chief magistrate and chief registrar.
        At the 38th meeting of the Body of Attorneys General in the Federation held in Lagos on of March 4, 1994, the need to enhance the salaries of law officers was discussed and it was resolved that the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of law officers in the FMJ and state ministries of justice should be enhanced.  The then AGF Dr. Olu Onagoruwa set in motion the implementation of the resolution by issuing a circular, a copy of which was sent to Imo State Government reference No. HAGF/JUD/1 3/VOL. 111/555 of March 7, 1994, stating that there is no justification for the disparity in the salary structure of  legal officers in the ministries and that of magistrates in the in the judiciary.
This, according to the circular, stems from the fact that they both possess the same educational qualification and post call experience and are to the same type of personal risk arising from the nature of their jobs.
The disparity, according to the circular, was responsible for the exodus of law officers from the ministries to the magisterial line or to private practice, which has in no small way hampered the dispensation of justice in most states of the federation.
Part of the circular reads: “In order to stem the exodus of law officers from the ministries of justice and to make the dispensation of justice more effective, the federal government has acknowledged that the salary structure and condition of service of law officers in the ministries be harmonised with that of the magistrates in the judiciary pending the time National Wages Review Commission will submit its report.
 “It would be deeply appreciated if the salary structure and condition of service of law officers in your state Ministry of Justice is harmonised with that of the magistrates in the judiciary of your state pending the final decision on the report of the National Wages Review Commission.”
Upon receipt of the circular from the then AGF, many states including Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Benue, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Imo, Lagos, Ogun, Katsina, Kano, Jigawa, Rivers, Ekiti, Taraba, Anambra, Yobe etcetera implemented the enhancement scheme as the salaries and condition of service of law officers in those states were harmonised with that of magistrates. Some states enacted the Law Officers (Harmonisation with Magistrates) Laws.
This circular is yet to be implemented in the FMJ. Since 1994, the federal government had at one time or the other approved enhanced salaries, allowances and condition of service for staff of some federal agencies including the EFCC, ICPC, FIRS, BPE, university lecturers and medical practitioners in government service. These gestures, like the previous ones were not extended to the law officers in the FMJ.
Not minding their peculiar situation, the law officers, quite unlike their counterparts in the teaching and medical profession, have remained loyal, committed and have not embarked on any form of industrial action.
The disparity of salaries, allowances and conditions of service of law officers with those of their colleagues of equivalent ranks and experience in the federal judiciary is causing a growing discontent, great disenchantment and low morale amongst law officers in the FMJ and her parastatals.
The importance of the law officers and assistance being rendered by them for quick disposal of cases and administration of criminal justice can neither be ignored nor denied as without their active role and sincere participation, the target of quick disposal of cases cannot be achieved.
Today, it has become extremely imperative to review the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of law officers by at least harmonising them with the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of federal judicial officers.
For one, the traditional role of an average law officer has been on the increase within the transformation agenda of the present administration. From the provision of legal framework, prosecution of cases, protection of the rule of law, legal representation to advisory services, the law officer has become an indispensable ‘behind the scene’ engine room for the success of this administration. Unfortunately, the law officer, who is statutorily prohibited from private practice, has turned out to be full of duties but dry in recompense.
        Secondly, considering that the law officers when compared to their colleagues in the judiciary, both possess the same educational qualifications and post call experience; and the attendant risk to their lives from the nature of their assignment; there is the urgent need to now take necessary precautionary measures to stem the tide of mass exodus of law officers from the ministries of justice to other sectors, especially the judiciary due to the disparity in salaries, allowances and conditions of service.
There has been an unending departure of hardworking and enterprising law officers to the judiciary and private practice owing to disparity of salaries. This has continued to occasion inestimable loss of institutional memory to the Ministry of Justice and the farming out of cases to private legal practitioners at huge financial expense to government.
        Thirdly, there has been great disenchantment among law officers, especially the directorate cadre in the FMJ prompted by the common knowledge that, most states of the federation have enhanced the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of their law officers by harmonising them with that of judicial officers.
        The argument is made even stronger considering that the harmonisation at the state level was made possible pursuant to a circular issued by the FMJ.
The Civil Service Salary Structure is not realistic for the proper remuneration of law officers. This has put LOAN in a great disadvantage when compared with their counterparts in other service schemes such as NNPC, CBN, EFCC, ICPC, Paramilitary, etc. This challenge is worsened by the ever increasing role of the average law officer especially in the current dispensation.
Investigations reveal that previous attempts at harmonisation failed due to leadership deficit, procrastination and lack of seriousness at the top especially amongst officers at the directorate cadre.
Lawyers are also naturally comfortable, contented and honourable and usually are not eager to take on industrial actions.
Today LOAN is demanding that the salaries, allowances and terms and conditions of service of its members in the FMJ should be the same with the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of judicial officers with similar ranks and experience and that any review of the terms and conditions of service of judicial officers in the federal judiciary should apply to its members.
LOAN is also saying that its members should be entitled to the same peculiar allowances which include:
        (a) Hazard/security allowance presently being enjoyed by medical practitioners should be paid to state counsel at the rate of 40% of their monthly basic salary due to the risk associated with the duties and assignments carried out by law officers;  
      (b) Private practice prohibition allowance of 30% of monthly salary as inducement for not engaging in private practice;
        (c)   Robe allowance of N1,200,000 (one million, two hundred thousand naira) per annum should be paid to law officers who by virtue of their calling have to appear well dressed to the office, the courts and other official engagements subject to 10% annual upward review.