At a time in the political history of this country this issue
seemed to have been nipped. Perchance, by some instruments at the
corridors of power mention of the alleged disappearance of a
whooping N 17 billion of the N 24 billion the Federal Government
set aside for payment of pension liabilities to its workers
nationwide probably by a mysterious calculation, got it’s way under
the rug and by somewhat the same mysterious prints of men, the
embellished silence over it became the glare of the public.
Political matters indeed and as it may seem have a way of leaping
out from the cover lid pot of this country and the public as well
always and readily do have a go at it, not without having their
fair share of opinions anyway.
I am accursed with the law’s conviction, the belief of the law
that one who is entrusted with public property or funds as it were
has a corresponding duty to utilize said property or funds for the
secured beneficiaries and where it otherwise, bound to account for
his public services. Without a filament of doubt, this article will
be sustained on these fragile lines of the law and upon it will the
writer liaise with its submissions.
The Nigerian Public or Civil Service of the Federation is one
sector composite of employees working for the government in various
Departments, Agencies and Ministries and each entitled to their
pension usually upon retirement. The retirement/pension benefits of
employees in Nigeria is regulated by the Pension Commission; a body
embalmed by law with that sole responsibility. It will therefore
suffice to say that the Commission is shouldered with the
responsibility of ensuring that pensioners receive their retirement
benefits as and when due. As the teeth would not chew without a
mouth so is the Nigerian economy enervated and deflated without a
public service. As a matter of fact, the economy only gets cracking
when the public service is not iced out in the scheme of
things.
Keenly, this latter position has been overfed and well fattened
by Section 1 (c) of the
Pension Reforms Act, 2014. The said
section provides as follows:
Section 1– The objectives of this
Act are;
- – “To ensure that every person who worked in either the
Public Service of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory, States
and Local Governments or the Private Sector receives his retirement
benefits as and when due.”
Properly guided by the drift of the above section, I need not
further strangulate the message of the section as it simply tells
us that the Commission is to ensure that employees in the Nigerian
Public Service receive their retirement/pension benefits as and
when due.
Notice must however be had to the legal fact that
Section 1 (c) of the Pension
Reforms Act, 2014 got impregnated by the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
as amended and particularly issued out
Section 173 (1) of the said Constitution.
The issue provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the right
of a person in the public service of the Federation to receive
pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.”
Essentially, the Commission’s responsibility in ensuring that a
pensioner in the Nigerian Public Service receives his retirement
benefits is made possible by the first fact that there must be and
is a law regulating the administration of pension reforms in
Nigeria and that law has been made possible by a constitutional
assertion as read above. That is, a pensioner receives his
retirement benefits because the constitution made it prompt and
rightful for there, first most be a law regulating the receipt of
pension benefits by a pensioner in Nigeria.
In continuum, any retirement benefits a person/pensioner is
entitled to in accordance with the said law (Pension
Reforms Act), such a person/pensioner should not be
unlawfully disadvantaged of such benefits or have the decks stacked
against him. This stand is greatly nourished further by
Section 173 (2) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
as amended.
The said subsection provides as follows:
(2)- “Any benefit to which a person is entitled in
accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection
(1) of this section shall not be withheld or altered to his
disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law,
including the Code of Conduct.”
As a subset to the above point of law, a public officer
entrusted to administer pension matters in Nigeria is not expected
to abuse his office or occasion any arbitrary act prejudicial to
the rights of pensioners. An officer who does so only rides for a
fall with the law and fosters his inefficiency.
This contention did not drop as hailstones from above but refuge
sought from the Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of Conduct
for Public Officers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
It provides in Section 9 thus:
“A public officer shall not do or direct to be done, in
abuse of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of
any other person knowing that such act is unlawful or contrary
to.”
Public Officers are accorded its semantics in the
Fifth Schedule, Part ll, Public Officers For the
Purpose of the Code of Conduct of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria in Section 10 as follows:
“Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Head of the
Civil Service of the Federation, Permanent Secretaries,
Directors-General and all other persons in the civil
service of the Federation or of the
State.”
Thus, a village reading of Sections 9 and
10 above shows that a person appointed Chairman of
the Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team to administer pension
matters is for the purpose of this section a public officer as he
is deemed to be part of the Civil or Public Service of the
Federation.
Like water descending a hill, it flows from above that the
Commission as part of its objectives is bound to ensure that
pensioners rightfully entitled by law to their retirement benefits
are not unlawfully deprived or disadvantaged or prejudiced of it
and that any public officer entrusted with the mandate of
administering pension matters, should do same without abusing the
office or attempt to worm his way through.
Furthermore, it will be right reasoning to posit that one who
misappropriates pension funds meant for retirees and employees in
that category will be logically said to have unlawfully deprived or
prejudicially disadvantaged pensioners who are de jure entitled to
retirement benefits. By that stretch of logic, one would still as
well be said to have breached the public trust, having
misappropriated pension funds meant for retirees and pensioners
most of whom may have suffered and died in the process of getting
their pensions and gratuities and some even without success.
If not in doubt, I am inclined to align the above point of facts
to the position of the law below as follows:
Pursuant to Section 405 of the Penal Code (Cap.
224), it is provided that:
“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged…commits ‘criminal breach of
trust’.”
It therefore means that a person (Maina in this
context), who is entrusted with property or pension
funds (alleged N 24 billion) for the
benefit of a person or group of persons (Nigerian
retirees or pensioners), dishonestly misappropriates
or converts same to his own use (Maina is alleged to
have worked in close concert with top government officials and
cronies leading to the disappearance of N 17
billion), and did same in violation of any direction
of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged
(Pension Reforms Act, 2014) such a person
is criminally responsible for Criminal Breach of Trust.
These extrapolations are further bolstered with the case of
Ibrahim & Ors. v. C.O.P (2010)
LPELR-CA/6C/2007, wherein the ingredients of the
offence of criminal breach of trust contained in
Section 311 of the Penal Code was made
bare thus:
- That the accused was entrusted with property or with
dominion over it - That he misappropriated the property; converted such
property to his own use and disposed of it - That he did so in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged; or
any legal contract expressed or implied which he had made
concerning the trust; or he intentionally allowed some other
persons to do or commit the above stated - That he acted dishonestly
This position was also reaffirmed in the cases of Er
Joo Nguang and Another v Public Prosecutor [2000] ISLR p 756 at
(37) and Onuoha v The State (1988) 3NWLR
(pt 83) 460 (SC).
If there is anything to go by the above inculpatory pointers
coupled with an alleged report compiled by the Director of Public
Prosecutions as government case to prosecute Maina, it will be safe
landing to say that the Ex-Chairman of the Presidential Pension
Reforms Task Team falls prey of the above expression of criminal
breach of trust and indeed enraged the law. A public officer
entrusted with public resources should always often know that his
integrity if he has any is the first and last thing that will be
scourged at the instance of any iota of misappropriation of
funds.
Furthermore, the fact that as at 2010 when Maina was appointed
Chairman of the Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team to 2013
thereabout when he eventually weaseled out of sight and his
subsequent dismissal from service, fetch further the believe in the
alleged missing amount of money during his employment especially
the fact that he was Chairman of the Team at the material time. His
subsequent appointment therefore is cruel to the feelings of the
law and will further put the foot of the anti-graft war closer to
the grave if those alleged to be involved are not given the
dickens.
No matter the explanation, like that put forward by the
Attorney-General of the Federation to Nigerians alleging that upon
a court order voiding the warrant of arrest of Maina which was
sought by the National Assembly to secure his appearance before the
House, the former’s alleged act of certifying the latter fit and
the subsequent alleged forwarding of his name to the Ministry of
Interior for further scrutiny and the remaining history that
transpired further puts the dampers on the fight against corruption
by the Buhari led administration in Nigeria. This goes to show that
the Chief Law Officer and Minister of the Government of the
Federation slacked and seemingly know not when to put square pegs
in square holes.
Faithfully, by the provisions of the Pension Reforms
Act, 2014, particularly Section 105
(2), the law has been made as plain as a pike staff
on the responsibility of the Attorney-General of the Federation on
offences appertaining to pension matters as follows:
(2)- “Prosecution for offences under this Act shall be
instituted before the Court in the name of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria by the Attorney General of the Federation or such Officer
in the Federal Ministry of Justice as the Attorney General of the
Federation may authorize.”
In addendum, Section 100 (1) of the Pension Reforms
Act, 2014 stipulates one of keen interest amongst
other pension offences within the Act as misappropriation or
diversion of pension funds as follows:
“A … person or body who misappropriates or
diverts pension funds commits an offence under this Act and is
liable on conviction to a fine of an amount equal to three times
the amount so misappropriated or diverted or to a term of not less
than 10 years imprisonment or to both fine and
imprisonment.”
In essence, the Attorney-General is first and foremost fortified
with prosecutorial powers for pension offences committed by a
person or body within the Pension Reforms Act. Particularly and
inclusively, his powers extend to any person or body that
misappropriates or diverts pension funds as is the case of Maina.
Armed with these armaments, one would have expected the
Attorney-General of the Federation to have sought an order of
injunction from the court restraining or estopping Maina from such
appointment or continuing thereof pending the determination of the
allegations of misappropriation of pension funds scandal against
him. Rather, trivial and petty legal matters seemed best for the
job.
Lucidly, an up-and-doing Chief Law Officer and Minister of the
Government of the Federation ought to know the enormity of an act
whether concealed, blown open or otherwise done as to afford him
the chance to act independently.
Already, the status of a public officer has been established
above and it is pertinent to mention so as not to malnourish the
body of this piece that public officers have a corresponding
responsibility to conform and observe to the Code of Conduct for
Public Officers. This is as provided in Section 172 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as
amended thus:
“A person in the public service of the Federation shall
observe and conform to the Code of
Conduct.”
It is implied therefore that public officers in the service of
the Federation are carefully monitored by a Code of Conduct which
demands of them strict adherence to. Thus, any public officer in
the Public Service of the Federation alleged to have breached the
Code of Conduct for public officers, such a person would have
incurred the brows of the law.
Furthermore, it stands to reason to say that Maina at the
material time as Ex-Chairman of the Presidential Pension Reforms
Task Team was a public officer and for that purpose and without
prejudice to other extant laws was controlled to an extent by a
Code of Conduct for Public Officers. As the law has tutored our
reasoning so far, a breach of that Code of Conduct in our context,
breach of trust, ought to be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.
This contention is fruitified by Section
12 of the Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of
Conduct for Public Officers, of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended thus:
“Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach
of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be
made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.”
Suffice to say that on the discovery of the alleged massive
misappropriation, the Chief Law Officer and Minister of the
Government of the Federation ought to have commenced the
prosecution of Maina from the Code of Conduct Tribunal. However,
had there been a pending suit in a law court or an impending one,
the punishment or sanctions imposed by the Code of Conduct Tribunal
would not prejudice the prosecution of such officer or prejudice
the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct a
criminal offence. This statement has been further pampered by
Section 18 (3) and (6) of the
Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of Conduct for Public
Officers, of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999 as amended thus:
(3)- “The sanctions mentioned in subparagraph (2) hereof
shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by
any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.”
(6)- “Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the
prosecution of a public officer punished under this paragraph or
preclude such officer from being prosecuted or punished for an
offence in a court of law.”
This goes to show that the Attorney-General or prosecuting
officer have various options and leeway without hindrance to
prosecuting a public officer that may have affronted the Code of
Conduct.
Furthermore, the regulatory and supervisory roles of the Pension
Commission seem to be beyond question on paper even as much to be
desired lingers on in view of Maina’s scandal. The principal object
of the Commission is as copiously provided in Section
18 (c) of the Pension Reforms Act, 2014. The said
section provides as follows:
Section 18– The principal object
of the Commission shall be- (c) -“To regulate,
supervise and ensure the effective administration of pension
matters and retirement benefits in Nigeria.”
The above provision shares leanings with Section 1
(c) of the Pension Reforms Act,
2014 as the Commission is bound in either section to
ensure that pensioners receive their retirement benefits as and
when due.
In a bid to regulating and supervising the effective
administration of pension matters and retirement benefits in
Nigeria, Section 18 (c) purports the
implied addition that any person or body entrusted the
responsibility of handling or appropriating funds to pensioners,
such should effectively administer the pension funds. That is, a
body or person appointed or farmed out the responsibility of
managing pension matters and retirement benefits in Nigeria and
said person or body fails in that venture, the Commission may be
said to be caught napping to her responsibilities as it may be
impliedly posited that she failed to monitor, regulate and
supervise such a person or body in the effective discharge and
administration of pension matters.
Apropos to Maina’s appointment as the Chairman of the
Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team with the singular mandate to
reform the pension system and clear arrears of pension owed
government retirees and the subsequent debacle of the project, one
cannot then but, lampoon the Pension Commission for her lackluster
and insipid supervision and regulation of the administration of
pension matters within the said period. The Commission cannot in
any guise tell the public that she was at all times dutiful and
watchful to the activities of the Chairman of the Presidential
Pension Reforms Task Team even as the eventual alleged massive
looting of pension funds speaks volume of gross dereliction of duty
on the part of the Commission.
Conclusively, as though issues crop up day by day in the
political space and leave each of them unattended to may see
Maina’s case end that way like the botched NNPC brouhaha and likes.
The Federal Government of Nigeria seems to be at loose ends, not
knowing what next to do on Maina’s issue than the thought of
sweeping it under the rug again as perceived from his body
language. As this may be the last resort of the government as
always had been sweeping sensitive issues under the rug, with so
many dusty ones lost underneath, be rest assured that someday and
somehow these issues longed sheltered will be swept out and
properly made up for attention.
In the meanwhile, the Legal Watchmen as her counsel of
perfection to the Presidency adjures that those persons found to be
connected to the Maina’s circle should be made to face the music
and high time they lower the boom against them.
© Legal Watchmen
AVST. OBABUEKI IYALEKHUOSA DAVIDSON
At a time in the political history of this country this issue
seemed to have been nipped. Perchance, by some instruments at the
corridors of power mention of the alleged disappearance of a
whooping N 17 billion of the N 24 billion the Federal Government
set aside for payment of pension liabilities to its workers
nationwide probably by a mysterious calculation, got it’s way under
the rug and by somewhat the same mysterious prints of men, the
embellished silence over it became the glare of the public.
Political matters indeed and as it may seem have a way of leaping
out from the cover lid pot of this country and the public as well
always and readily do have a go at it, not without having their
fair share of opinions anyway.
I am accursed with the law’s conviction, the belief of the law
that one who is entrusted with public property or funds as it were
has a corresponding duty to utilize said property or funds for the
secured beneficiaries and where it otherwise, bound to account for
his public services. Without a filament of doubt, this article will
be sustained on these fragile lines of the law and upon it will the
writer liaise with its submissions.
The Nigerian Public or Civil Service of the Federation is one
sector composite of employees working for the government in various
Departments, Agencies and Ministries and each entitled to their
pension usually upon retirement. The retirement/pension benefits of
employees in Nigeria is regulated by the Pension Commission; a body
embalmed by law with that sole responsibility. It will therefore
suffice to say that the Commission is shouldered with the
responsibility of ensuring that pensioners receive their retirement
benefits as and when due. As the teeth would not chew without a
mouth so is the Nigerian economy enervated and deflated without a
public service. As a matter of fact, the economy only gets cracking
when the public service is not iced out in the scheme of
things.
Keenly, this latter position has been overfed and well fattened
by Section 1 (c) of the
Pension Reforms Act, 2014. The said
section provides as follows:
Section 1– The objectives of this
Act are;
- – “To ensure that every person who worked in either the
Public Service of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory, States
and Local Governments or the Private Sector receives his retirement
benefits as and when due.”
Properly guided by the drift of the above section, I need not
further strangulate the message of the section as it simply tells
us that the Commission is to ensure that employees in the Nigerian
Public Service receive their retirement/pension benefits as and
when due.
Notice must however be had to the legal fact that
Section 1 (c) of the Pension
Reforms Act, 2014 got impregnated by the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
as amended and particularly issued out
Section 173 (1) of the said Constitution.
The issue provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the right
of a person in the public service of the Federation to receive
pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.”
Essentially, the Commission’s responsibility in ensuring that a
pensioner in the Nigerian Public Service receives his retirement
benefits is made possible by the first fact that there must be and
is a law regulating the administration of pension reforms in
Nigeria and that law has been made possible by a constitutional
assertion as read above. That is, a pensioner receives his
retirement benefits because the constitution made it prompt and
rightful for there, first most be a law regulating the receipt of
pension benefits by a pensioner in Nigeria.
In continuum, any retirement benefits a person/pensioner is
entitled to in accordance with the said law (Pension
Reforms Act), such a person/pensioner should not be
unlawfully disadvantaged of such benefits or have the decks stacked
against him. This stand is greatly nourished further by
Section 173 (2) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
as amended.
The said subsection provides as follows:
(2)- “Any benefit to which a person is entitled in
accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection
(1) of this section shall not be withheld or altered to his
disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law,
including the Code of Conduct.”
As a subset to the above point of law, a public officer
entrusted to administer pension matters in Nigeria is not expected
to abuse his office or occasion any arbitrary act prejudicial to
the rights of pensioners. An officer who does so only rides for a
fall with the law and fosters his inefficiency.
This contention did not drop as hailstones from above but refuge
sought from the Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of Conduct
for Public Officers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
It provides in Section 9 thus:
“A public officer shall not do or direct to be done, in
abuse of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of
any other person knowing that such act is unlawful or contrary
to.”
Public Officers are accorded its semantics in the
Fifth Schedule, Part ll, Public Officers For the
Purpose of the Code of Conduct of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria in Section 10 as follows:
“Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Head of the
Civil Service of the Federation, Permanent Secretaries,
Directors-General and all other persons in the civil
service of the Federation or of the
State.”
Thus, a village reading of Sections 9 and
10 above shows that a person appointed Chairman of
the Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team to administer pension
matters is for the purpose of this section a public officer as he
is deemed to be part of the Civil or Public Service of the
Federation.
Like water descending a hill, it flows from above that the
Commission as part of its objectives is bound to ensure that
pensioners rightfully entitled by law to their retirement benefits
are not unlawfully deprived or disadvantaged or prejudiced of it
and that any public officer entrusted with the mandate of
administering pension matters, should do same without abusing the
office or attempt to worm his way through.
Furthermore, it will be right reasoning to posit that one who
misappropriates pension funds meant for retirees and employees in
that category will be logically said to have unlawfully deprived or
prejudicially disadvantaged pensioners who are de jure entitled to
retirement benefits. By that stretch of logic, one would still as
well be said to have breached the public trust, having
misappropriated pension funds meant for retirees and pensioners
most of whom may have suffered and died in the process of getting
their pensions and gratuities and some even without success.
If not in doubt, I am inclined to align the above point of facts
to the position of the law below as follows:
Pursuant to Section 405 of the Penal Code (Cap.
224), it is provided that:
“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged…commits ‘criminal breach of
trust’.”
It therefore means that a person (Maina in this
context), who is entrusted with property or pension
funds (alleged N 24 billion) for the
benefit of a person or group of persons (Nigerian
retirees or pensioners), dishonestly misappropriates
or converts same to his own use (Maina is alleged to
have worked in close concert with top government officials and
cronies leading to the disappearance of N 17
billion), and did same in violation of any direction
of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged
(Pension Reforms Act, 2014) such a person
is criminally responsible for Criminal Breach of Trust.
These extrapolations are further bolstered with the case of
Ibrahim & Ors. v. C.O.P (2010)
LPELR-CA/6C/2007, wherein the ingredients of the
offence of criminal breach of trust contained in
Section 311 of the Penal Code was made
bare thus:
- That the accused was entrusted with property or with
dominion over it - That he misappropriated the property; converted such
property to his own use and disposed of it - That he did so in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged; or
any legal contract expressed or implied which he had made
concerning the trust; or he intentionally allowed some other
persons to do or commit the above stated - That he acted dishonestly
This position was also reaffirmed in the cases of Er
Joo Nguang and Another v Public Prosecutor [2000] ISLR p 756 at
(37) and Onuoha v The State (1988) 3NWLR
(pt 83) 460 (SC).
If there is anything to go by the above inculpatory pointers
coupled with an alleged report compiled by the Director of Public
Prosecutions as government case to prosecute Maina, it will be safe
landing to say that the Ex-Chairman of the Presidential Pension
Reforms Task Team falls prey of the above expression of criminal
breach of trust and indeed enraged the law. A public officer
entrusted with public resources should always often know that his
integrity if he has any is the first and last thing that will be
scourged at the instance of any iota of misappropriation of
funds.
Furthermore, the fact that as at 2010 when Maina was appointed
Chairman of the Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team to 2013
thereabout when he eventually weaseled out of sight and his
subsequent dismissal from service, fetch further the believe in the
alleged missing amount of money during his employment especially
the fact that he was Chairman of the Team at the material time. His
subsequent appointment therefore is cruel to the feelings of the
law and will further put the foot of the anti-graft war closer to
the grave if those alleged to be involved are not given the
dickens.
No matter the explanation, like that put forward by the
Attorney-General of the Federation to Nigerians alleging that upon
a court order voiding the warrant of arrest of Maina which was
sought by the National Assembly to secure his appearance before the
House, the former’s alleged act of certifying the latter fit and
the subsequent alleged forwarding of his name to the Ministry of
Interior for further scrutiny and the remaining history that
transpired further puts the dampers on the fight against corruption
by the Buhari led administration in Nigeria. This goes to show that
the Chief Law Officer and Minister of the Government of the
Federation slacked and seemingly know not when to put square pegs
in square holes.
Faithfully, by the provisions of the Pension Reforms
Act, 2014, particularly Section 105
(2), the law has been made as plain as a pike staff
on the responsibility of the Attorney-General of the Federation on
offences appertaining to pension matters as follows:
(2)- “Prosecution for offences under this Act shall be
instituted before the Court in the name of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria by the Attorney General of the Federation or such Officer
in the Federal Ministry of Justice as the Attorney General of the
Federation may authorize.”
In addendum, Section 100 (1) of the Pension Reforms
Act, 2014 stipulates one of keen interest amongst
other pension offences within the Act as misappropriation or
diversion of pension funds as follows:
“A … person or body who misappropriates or
diverts pension funds commits an offence under this Act and is
liable on conviction to a fine of an amount equal to three times
the amount so misappropriated or diverted or to a term of not less
than 10 years imprisonment or to both fine and
imprisonment.”
In essence, the Attorney-General is first and foremost fortified
with prosecutorial powers for pension offences committed by a
person or body within the Pension Reforms Act. Particularly and
inclusively, his powers extend to any person or body that
misappropriates or diverts pension funds as is the case of Maina.
Armed with these armaments, one would have expected the
Attorney-General of the Federation to have sought an order of
injunction from the court restraining or estopping Maina from such
appointment or continuing thereof pending the determination of the
allegations of misappropriation of pension funds scandal against
him. Rather, trivial and petty legal matters seemed best for the
job.
Lucidly, an up-and-doing Chief Law Officer and Minister of the
Government of the Federation ought to know the enormity of an act
whether concealed, blown open or otherwise done as to afford him
the chance to act independently.
Already, the status of a public officer has been established
above and it is pertinent to mention so as not to malnourish the
body of this piece that public officers have a corresponding
responsibility to conform and observe to the Code of Conduct for
Public Officers. This is as provided in Section 172 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as
amended thus:
“A person in the public service of the Federation shall
observe and conform to the Code of
Conduct.”
It is implied therefore that public officers in the service of
the Federation are carefully monitored by a Code of Conduct which
demands of them strict adherence to. Thus, any public officer in
the Public Service of the Federation alleged to have breached the
Code of Conduct for public officers, such a person would have
incurred the brows of the law.
Furthermore, it stands to reason to say that Maina at the
material time as Ex-Chairman of the Presidential Pension Reforms
Task Team was a public officer and for that purpose and without
prejudice to other extant laws was controlled to an extent by a
Code of Conduct for Public Officers. As the law has tutored our
reasoning so far, a breach of that Code of Conduct in our context,
breach of trust, ought to be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.
This contention is fruitified by Section
12 of the Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of
Conduct for Public Officers, of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended thus:
“Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach
of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be
made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.”
Suffice to say that on the discovery of the alleged massive
misappropriation, the Chief Law Officer and Minister of the
Government of the Federation ought to have commenced the
prosecution of Maina from the Code of Conduct Tribunal. However,
had there been a pending suit in a law court or an impending one,
the punishment or sanctions imposed by the Code of Conduct Tribunal
would not prejudice the prosecution of such officer or prejudice
the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct a
criminal offence. This statement has been further pampered by
Section 18 (3) and (6) of the
Fifth Schedule, Part l, Code of Conduct for Public
Officers, of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999 as amended thus:
(3)- “The sanctions mentioned in subparagraph (2) hereof
shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by
any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.”
(6)- “Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the
prosecution of a public officer punished under this paragraph or
preclude such officer from being prosecuted or punished for an
offence in a court of law.”
This goes to show that the Attorney-General or prosecuting
officer have various options and leeway without hindrance to
prosecuting a public officer that may have affronted the Code of
Conduct.
Furthermore, the regulatory and supervisory roles of the Pension
Commission seem to be beyond question on paper even as much to be
desired lingers on in view of Maina’s scandal. The principal object
of the Commission is as copiously provided in Section
18 (c) of the Pension Reforms Act, 2014. The said
section provides as follows:
Section 18– The principal object
of the Commission shall be- (c) -“To regulate,
supervise and ensure the effective administration of pension
matters and retirement benefits in Nigeria.”
The above provision shares leanings with Section 1
(c) of the Pension Reforms Act,
2014 as the Commission is bound in either section to
ensure that pensioners receive their retirement benefits as and
when due.
In a bid to regulating and supervising the effective
administration of pension matters and retirement benefits in
Nigeria, Section 18 (c) purports the
implied addition that any person or body entrusted the
responsibility of handling or appropriating funds to pensioners,
such should effectively administer the pension funds. That is, a
body or person appointed or farmed out the responsibility of
managing pension matters and retirement benefits in Nigeria and
said person or body fails in that venture, the Commission may be
said to be caught napping to her responsibilities as it may be
impliedly posited that she failed to monitor, regulate and
supervise such a person or body in the effective discharge and
administration of pension matters.
Apropos to Maina’s appointment as the Chairman of the
Presidential Pension Reforms Task Team with the singular mandate to
reform the pension system and clear arrears of pension owed
government retirees and the subsequent debacle of the project, one
cannot then but, lampoon the Pension Commission for her lackluster
and insipid supervision and regulation of the administration of
pension matters within the said period. The Commission cannot in
any guise tell the public that she was at all times dutiful and
watchful to the activities of the Chairman of the Presidential
Pension Reforms Task Team even as the eventual alleged massive
looting of pension funds speaks volume of gross dereliction of duty
on the part of the Commission.
Conclusively, as though issues crop up day by day in the
political space and leave each of them unattended to may see
Maina’s case end that way like the botched NNPC brouhaha and likes.
The Federal Government of Nigeria seems to be at loose ends, not
knowing what next to do on Maina’s issue than the thought of
sweeping it under the rug again as perceived from his body
language. As this may be the last resort of the government as
always had been sweeping sensitive issues under the rug, with so
many dusty ones lost underneath, be rest assured that someday and
somehow these issues longed sheltered will be swept out and
properly made up for attention.
In the meanwhile, the Legal Watchmen as her counsel of
perfection to the Presidency adjures that those persons found to be
connected to the Maina’s circle should be made to face the music
and high time they lower the boom against them.
© Legal Watchmen
AVST. OBABUEKI IYALEKHUOSA DAVIDSON
Read more https://www.nairalaw.com/critical-legal-reviews-on-the-abdulrasheed-mainas-scandal/