A motion seeking a review of the salaries of judicial
officers suffered a setback at the house of representatives on Thursday.
Onofiok luke, lawmaker from Akwa Ibom and sponsor of the
motion, had requested that the house ask the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation
and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) to “upwardly review the remuneration of judicial officers
in line with present economic realities”.
While moving his motion, Luke drew the attention of his
colleagues to the recent letter written by 14 justices of the supreme court
accusing Ibrahim Muhammad, chief justice of Nigeria, of abandoning his responsibilities
as the leader of the court.
Luke said the issues raised by the justices threaten their performance and can cause delays in justice delivery “with its attendant effect on the maintenance of law and order in the country”.
“The remuneration of judicial officers was last reviewed in
2008 by the RMAFC when the official exchange rate was N117.74 to $1, whereas
the naira has considerably depreciated,” he said.
But debates by lawmakers forced him to step down the motion
for “further consultation”.
In his debate, Idris Wase, the deputy speaker of the house,
called for the review of the salaries of public officers who fall under the
“scheduled bodies” of RMAFC.
He said the salaries of judicial officers should not be reviewed
in isolation.
“I think this particular element does not affect just
judicial officers,” he said.
“My amendments will be that the RMAFC reviews and look into
the entirety of those scheduled bodies under their supervision. They have the
responsibility to review their salaries. That is my amendment.”
The RMAFC is empowered to determine the remuneration
appropriate for political office holders, including the president,
vice-president, governor, deputy governors, ministers, commissioners, special
advisers, legislators, among others.
While rephrasing Wase’s amendment, Femi Gbajabiamila,
speaker of the house who presided over the session, said “the DSP’s amendment
is that we should not isolate the judiciary. All those enumerated constitutional
bodies and public office holders should be reviewed”.
Luke, who was visibly dissatisfied with the amendment, said
while he agrees with the decision of the house on Wase’s amendment, “there is a
danger in that”.
“Never in the history of the supreme court have we had
justices of the supreme court raising the alarm because they have gotten issues
that have bottled them up,” Luke said.
“Now, the danger is that the regulation or legislation
dealing with the remuneration of the judicial officers is tied with the
remuneration of political office holders. Any attempt by us now to begin to
push an agenda for our own review would be seen as politicians wanting to
increase their salaries, which would have covered what we are seeking to do,
which is asking for the increase of salaries of judicial offices.”
Luke, who is the judiciary committee chairman, advised his
colleagues to pass the original motion without the proposal of the deputy
speaker.
“We must rise as legislators to speak for them and find a
way until when we have had an amendment to the certain political, public and
judicial office holders (Salaries and Allowances) Act. That is why we have been
asking for splitting of it.”
But Wase disagreed, saying he was “taken aback” by Luke’s
recommendation.
“This is an attempt to improve the system and remuneration
is one element,” he said.
While the back and forth between Wase and Luke was yet to be
put to rest, Tahir Monguno, the house’s chief whip proposed another amendment,
demanding a review of the national minimum wage.
Subsequently, Gbajabiamila asked if Luke would step down the
motion “for further consultations” and reintroduce it next week.
Luke agreed and the motion was stepped down.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com