More transparency in Pensions Act review

The government last year proposed an amendment to the 2004 law to reduce the number of years of cognate experience required for the post of the Director General of the National Pension Commission from 20 to 15 years. There are suggestions of a further lowering of the bar to 10 years. Some lawmakers oppose the […]

The government last year proposed an amendment to the 2004 law to reduce the number of years of cognate experience required for the post of the Director General of the National Pension Commission from 20 to 15 years. There are suggestions of a further lowering of the bar to 10 years. Some lawmakers oppose the amendment on the grounds that it was intended to pave way for the officer currently acting in that capacity, Mrs Chinelo Anohu-Amazu, to be appointed to the substantive position.  Mrs Anohu-Amazu began her working career in 1998; by provisions of the existing law, she lacks the 20 years’ experience requirement to be confirmed to the post.
In its report, the joint Committee recommended the removal of the criterion of years of experience as a requirement for the post of the DG. Another area the Committee called for a change is in the tenure of the DG, where it recommended an extension to five years from the four that is contained in the Act.
But the report was rejected by both houses of the National Assembly, following allegations by some members of the joint committee that their signatures in it were forged. On November 6 2013, when the report was tabled in the Senate, its President, David Mark, warned the committee’s alternate leader, Senator Aloysius Etok, not to return it without all of its members actually signing it themselves. Meanwhile as soon as it was listed in the House of Representatives last week, the affected members circulated a petition contesting the authenticity of the signatures against their names.
This development once again casts the National Assembly in a rather unflattering light. The issue is not merely one involving people in positions that they hold in public trust trying to reserve certain positions in the public service for their cronies; it portrays the impunity with which such sleaze is perpetrated.
Laws should typically be amended to keep abreast with changing circumstances.  This holds true in the case of the Pension Act.  Pension reforms are a relatively recent development, and are not up to 20 years in Nigeria. Hence the 20 year-experience requirement would mean that no Nigerian is qualified to be DG of the commission.   
However against the premise that laws in a regular democracy as Nigeria practices are not made to promote or vitiate the interest of individuals, the entire process associated with the joint committee’s work is faulty and qualifies for rectification.  If laws are made to suit the circumstances of individuals, what happens when such circumstances change?
Examined in a wider context, the situation places the National Assembly in yet another huge credibility crisis bordering on how representative its committee reports are in general.  
Also unfortunate is the fact that all the leadership of the National Assembly, especially the Senate, could offer was what amounted to slap on the wrist.
Needless to remind the leadership of the National Assembly that as the elected representatives of Nigerians, it behoves on them to exercise the discretion delegated to them by their constituents, to make laws for good governance.  Pension reform is a crucial exercise that should be undertaken with the interest of the entire nation kept in perspective.