ABUJA – The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) says it does not determine how much political office holders take home as pension at the end of their service.
It said RMAFC was forced to make the clarification based on misleading reports concerning pension benefits for political and other public office holders in Nigeria.
“The RMAFC has never recommended pension for them as it is not within its purview.
It said pension for Mr. President and the Vice President was provided in Section (84) (5) of the 1999 Constitution.
“Any person who has held office as President or Vice-President shall be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to the annual salary of the incumbent President or Vice-President.
“Provided that such a person was not removed from office by the process of impeachment or for breach of any provisions of this constitution.
“Any pension granted by virtue of subsection (5) of this section shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.
“From the foregoing therefore, it is crystal clear that the commission is not constitutionally empowered to delve into matters of pension for political, public office holders as wrongly imputed.”
RMAFC also drew attention to the difference between salary and allowances of political office holders.
According to the statement, salaries of political office holders are not as high as what is being peddled.
“It should be noted that the salaries and allowances of political, public and judicial office holder’s salaries are available at www.rmafc.gov.ng.”
It states the actual amount being paid to legislators and other public officers.
“The Remuneration Act of 2008 provides for both regular and non-regular allowances.
“The non-regular allowances include severance/gratuity paid only once after the successful completion of tenure.
“Furniture allowance paid once every four years; accommodation, where not provided, is paid annually, and motor vehicle loan (optional) is repayable before the expiration of tenure.
“It is, therefore, wrong and misleading to add up allowances, irrespective of whether they are regular, refundable or non-regular, as the regular annual emoluments of public office holders,” it stated.
It stated that the Chief Accounting Officer should be held accountable if any political, public office holder was paid anything outside what was provided in the Remuneration Act of 2008. (NAN)
you may also like: