Two issues caught my attention last week – the alleged approval of an increase in the salaries of political office holders, which turned out to be false; and the continuous use of Police Prosecutors who are non-Lawyers in the Magistrate Courts.
Can RMAFC be that Insensitive?
Last week, RMAFC (Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission) was accused of approving a 114% increment in the salaries of political office holders. I thought I must have misheard, when there was an outcry that RMAFC had approved a 114% increment in the salaries of not only judicial officers, which I must emphasise, has been very much long overdue, since the dockets of the Nigerian courts are legendary as one of the busiest in the world, but their already poor salaries haven’t been increased since 2007; but also that of political office holders. The Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) Committee on Remuneration of Judicial Officers and Conditions of Service had recommended a 200% increase in the annual basic salary of judicial officers, and in response, RMAFC has proposed a 114% increase instead. Nigerians were incensed that instead of decreasing the already exorbitant salaries of political office holders, National Assembly members and the like, augmented by their scandalous allowances, severance pays, pensions etc, there was talk that RMAFC had approved even more for them. Fortunately, it turned out to be untrue. It would not only have been the height of insensitivity and cruelty to the Nigerian worker, but another definite step towards making the divide between the fortunate and less fortunate, wider – a sure recipe for more disaster in Nigeria. It is highly unlikely, that the Tinubu administration will make that kind of costly mistake.
Minimum Wage and Judicial Officers’ Poor Remuneration
While I’m obviously concerned about the paltry salaries of critical workers like Doctors, Nurses, Teachers and so on in Nigeria, I am centring this discussion on the remuneration of the lowest paid Nigerian workers who presently earn N30,000 monthly, and of course, that of judicial officers, since the Justice sector is my primary constituency.
Section 16(2)(d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended in 2023) (the Constitution) mandates that workers should be paid a ‘reasonable national minimum living wage’. See Section 3(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2019 (NMWA). A minimum wage is the lowest wage permitted by law, as opposed to a living wage which is a wage that is at least enough to maintain a subsistence standard of living – neither of the two, whether minimum or living wage, is attractive or comfortable. In 2017, workers sought an increase from the N18,000 minimum wage to N56,000. They got N30,000, which I submit that, today, along with the meagre salaries of judicial officers, are neither reasonable nor living wages. There should be an immediate upward review of same, especially in light of the recent removal of the fuel subsidy which has resulted in an increase in prices of everything across board. As usual, successive governments have continuously breached the provision of Section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution, which, whether justiciable or not, is binding on all authorities and persons in Nigeria. See Section 1(1) of the Constitution and Jegede & Anor v INEC & Ors (2021) LPELR-55481(SC) per Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC.
Though a member of the ILO, Nigeria failed to ratify the International Labour Organisation Minimum Wage Fixing Convention 1970 (No. 131), which provides for the establishment of a system of minimum wage that should be adjusted periodically, to reflect the cost of living and economic conditions. However, we have our NMWA, enacted in 1981, which established our own minimum wage system. I submit that today is such a period, when the minimum wage requires adjustment, in line with our present day realities. It would therefore, have been absolutely bizarre, if Government ignored the plight of majority of Nigerian workers, leaving them to suffer the incredible hardship of not being able to live a dignified life contrary to Section 34(1) of the Constitution, as a result of the meagre salaries they earn, while RMAFC goes about increasing the salaries of undeserving political office holders who are already living in a lap of luxury. It more or less amounts to degrading treatment of the average Nigerian worker and compulsory labour, in that a person has no option since he/she has to work to eke out a living, but is however, not paid enough to have a reasonably decent livelihood. This is unconstitutional. The monthly newspaper allowance of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives which is about N300,000 and N280,000 respectively per member (and shouldn’t actually be more than N16,000 monthly, allowing for two newspapers daily) and amounts to over N130 million monthly combined, can pay over 2,000 workers a minimum wage of N64,200 monthly, if they are given a 114% increase in pay.
In the past, successive Nigerian Government administrations have shown their love only for the livelihood of the little percentage of top level employees which they are obviously a part of, leaving the average Nigerian worker high and dry. Yet, some are still wondering why there has been such a drastic increase in corruption and insecurity! Desperation, hunger, unemployment, inequality, inequity are all major contributors to the precarious condition that Nigeria finds herself in. We are therefore hopeful, that President Tinubu’s administration will do the needful in bridging some of these gaps, especially that of the Justice sector, considering his record of a decent performance in the Lagos State Judiciary when he was Governor, pioneering several innovations.
Police Prosecutors that are Non-Qualified Legal Practitioners
While it is our hope that Government will meet all the recommendations of the NBA Committee on Remuneration of Judicial Officers and Conditions of Service to RMAFC, we also expect that the Tinubu administration will enthrone adherence to the rule of law in the Nigerian society. Just as we expect Government to obey Section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution and ensure that workers are paid decent wages, so also must the Police obey the law, as they are not above it. It is rather unbecoming and embarrassing that those whose constitutional and statutory role is to enforce the law, are among the principal lawbreakers.
I was chatting with a colleague who was telling me about being in a Magistrate Court recently, listening to a Police Prosecutor who isn’t a legal practitioner conduct a case, who was conducting it rather badly too. I responded that I thought that this practice had been abolished. Alas! I was wrong. Police Prosecutors who are not legal practitioners, are still prosecuting cases with gusto and aplomb, despite the fact that the old Section 23 of the Police Act 2004 under which Police Prosecutors were permitted to conduct prosecutions in any court was repealed by the Police Act 2020 (PA).
Sections 174 & 211 of the Constitution provide for the AGs and Law Officers in their Departments to undertake criminal proceedings, other than court martial. Fiats are also given to private legal practitioners by the AGs, to prosecute on their behalf. Section 106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) only authorises legal practitioners to prosecute cases in courts. Similarly, Section 66(1) of the Police Act 2020 (PA) provides for a Police Officer who is a legal practitioner to prosecute cases.
By virtue of Section 66(2) of the PA, Police Officers who are non-qualified legal practitioners are permitted to prosecute criminal matters which non-qualified legal practitioners are allowed to prosecute. The question is, which criminal matters are non-qualified legal practitioners allowed to prosecute, and in which courts? Police Orderly Room Trial, perhaps? And, this isn’t considered to be criminal, but the exercise of disciplinary action against an erring Police Officer. If we could have said maybe the Customary or Sharia Courts, the Constitution does not endow them or any other courts with criminal jurisdiction, except Magistrate to the the Supreme Court, and only qualified legal practitioners can appear there. See Sections 233, 241(1), 251, 262, 267, 277 & 282 of the Constitution, on the courts which are endowed with criminal jurisdiction.
The case my colleague told me about in the Magistrate Court, was one of stealing, public disturbance and false identity/impersonation; certainly not a case that can fall under the extremely shaky Section 66(2) of the PA. To buttress this point, I also refer to Section 66(3)(a) of PA, which provides that every Police Division shall have a Police Officer who is qualified as a legal practitioner. If the Police recognises their need for a Police Lawyer in every Division, why is such an important law enforcement agency doing the wrong thing, by still operating under an abolished law, and why is the Magistrate Court allowing this kind of unlawful conduct, which in effect, renders any judgement given by a court where the prosecution is undertaken by one not legally empowered so to do, null and void?
In Raphael Obijiaku v Chief Joe Obijiaku & 2 Ors (2017) LPELR-43455(CA), the Court of Appeal confirmed the power of a Police Prosecutor to institute and prosecute criminal proceedings in court, by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act 2004. In that judgement, the Intermediate Court cited the case of FRN v Osahon 2006 5 N.W.L.R. Part 973 Page 36 where, in a majority judgement of 5 to 2, the Supreme Court held that a Police Officer, irrespective of whether he was a qualified legal practitioner could sue not just in the Federal High Court, but any court.
However, with the advent of Section 66(1) of the Police Act 2020 in conjunction with Section 106 of ACJA, the position of the law has changed. And, in the same case, but now at the Supreme Court, that is, Raphael Obijiaku v Chief Joe Obijiaku & 2 Ors 2022 17 N.W.L.R. Part 1859 Page 377 at 400-402, the Supreme Court held inter alia that “prosecution of criminal proceedings can be undertaken by either a law officer in the Ministry or Department of the Attorney-General or a private legal practitioner authorised by the Attorney-General or a Police Officer who is a legal practitioner. These are the persons authorised to prosecute a charge, either at the Magistrate Court or Superior Courts of Record”.
Conclusion
How long will we continue like this? Where Government authorities and agencies, even the Nigeria Police Force, the chief law enforcement agency in the country, observe laws more in their breach than anything else? Why should non-legal practitioners, obviously not trained, already in the employ of the Police, take the job that can be given to young, newly qualified legal practitioners between 1-7 years of qualification? Going forward, we hope that the new Inspector General of Police will prohibit this unlawful practice immediately. Why should workers, life savers like Doctors and Nurses, Teachers without whom majority of us could never have got to where we are today, and Judicial Officers who are literally society’s anchor, be so poorly paid, so much so that these groups earn practically less than a living wage, while political office holders like National Assembly members are overpaid and living not just fine, but flamboyantly? It is high time that our system of remuneration of workers be reviewed, to be fairer and more acceptable.
Credit: Onikepo Braithwaite