By NICK DAZANG
THE Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) was established under Section 153(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). It is one of Nigeria’s fourteen Executive Bodies, alongside others such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Federal Character Commission (FCC).
The RMAFC has seven key statutory responsibilities, one of which is to determine the remuneration of public office holders by fixing salaries and benefits for political leaders. These include the president, vice president, governors, ministers, commissioners and special advisers. Perhaps the most pivotal of its roles is the periodic assessment and updating of the revenue sharing formula among the three tiers of government—federal, state and local governments. This exercise, meant to reflect prevailing economic realities, is expected to take place at least once every five years.
It was therefore unsurprising when the Chairman of RMAFC, Mohammed Shehu, recently disclosed that his commission was contemplating a review of the salaries of political office holders, in line with its mandate. According to him, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu currently earns N1.5 million per month, while Ministers earn less than H1 million monthly. These are figures that have remained unchanged since 2008.
Shehu further argued: “You are paying the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria N1.5 million a month, with a population of over 200 million people. Everybody believes that it is a joke. You cannot pay a Minister less than N1 million a month since 2008 and expect him to put in his best without necessarily being involved in some other things. You pay either a CBN governor or the D-G ten times more than you pay the President….”
The real “joke” in Nigeria’s pay structure
At face value, this argument may seem valid. In 2008, the naira was sturdier and exchanged at N115 to the U.S. dollar. Today, thanks to the withdrawal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira under President Tinubu’s administration, the currency exchanges at over H1,500 to the dollar. Given these realities, it is tempting to dismiss the President’s salary as a joke—or, in Nigerian parlance, as “chicken change.”
But with due respect, the RMAFC Chairman glosses over more fundamental issues. What about the salary of a Nigerian professor? What of a Permanent Secretary? How much is the minimum wage? What is the take-home pay of a pensioner, especially under the contributory scheme? And how do our unemployed youth survive?
Moreover, while the president’s salary may appear meagre, Shehu has failed to mention the perks and privileges the president enjoys, including a hefty security vote. The truth is that many public officials, such as heads of intelligence agencies and the Central Bank, earn more than the president, even in advanced democracies. These officials are paid higher because of the sensitive and technical nature of their duties, not because they rank above the head of state.
Political office is about service, not enrichment
More importantly, political office is meant to be a call to service, not an avenue for self-enrichment. Sadly, it is this warped perception of public office as a channel for feathering personal nests that has landed Nigeria in its current sorry state—one where, to use Shehu’s own words, the country is regarded by many in the international community as a “joke.”
While Shehu is correct that his Commission’s purview covers salaries and allowances of political office holders, he ought to be wise enough to recognise that such a review cannot be pursued in isolation from the harsh socio-economic realities confronting the wider population. To contemplate raising the salaries of politicians at a time of widespread suffering is insensitive, reckless and bound to provoke public outrage.
Like other executive bodies established under Section 153 of the Constitution, the RMAFC is expected to be transparent, fair and consultative in its decisions. Before proposing this upward review, which other organisations did it consult? Which critical stakeholders were engaged?
The Commission should perish this plan. Unless it is merely flying a kite, the proposal is not only inequitable and provocative, but also a slap in the face of millions of Nigerian workers, pensioners and the unemployed, who have received no such consideration. What is good for the goose should, after all, be good for the gander.
Dazang, OON, a public affairs commentator, writes from Abujavia nickdazang@gmail. Com