 |
| RMAFC chairman outlines proposed pay review today |
FG set to review pay for top office holders, RMAFC says — and the debate is loud and quick. The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission told reporters it will reopen pay scales for the president, vice president, ministers, senators, and others, arguing the figures have not kept pace with the times.
At a briefing in Abuja, the commission’s chairman ran through the rough math to make a point about reality on the ground. He said the president’s monthly take-home sits at about ₦1.5 million, and most ministers earn less than ₦1 million, levels that the commission says have been largely unchanged for many years.
The words landed like a bucket of cold water for a public already tired of rising prices and smaller pay packets. The commission argued that low official pay can create distortions where top officials chase other ways to raise income, and where agency heads earn far more than ministers doing the same kind of heavy duty work.
Don’t get the wrong idea — the commission did not say any pay rise is approved or immediate. It said the review is under way and that policy choices lie ahead, not boardroom orders to raise pay this minute. The commission stressed process and checks as it maps a new pay structure.
That distinction matters, and people noticed. Labour groups, civil society, and a slice of the public pushed back fast, saying the news felt badly timed while workers’ wages stay squeezed and many basic services strain under tight budgets. Critics said the talk of raises for top office holders smelled like a widening gap in a country already split by income strains.
The commission’s line is blunt but short on ceremony. It points out that the last comprehensive review of pay for political office holders goes back many years, and that the naira’s purchasing power has fallen since then. By the commission’s account, older pay tables no longer match what the job demands, or how public expectations have shifted.
So what are the hard facts the commission put on the table? First, the official monthly salary of the president is around ₦1.5 million, a figure that the commission used to show how out of step the pay scheme looks against the nation’s size and complex duties. Second, ministers’ official pay is below ₦1 million monthly, though the public often hears about other allowances that can swell total take-home.
Those extra allowances are a key complaint from unions and watchdogs. Labour leaders pointed out that the headline salary is only part of the story, while other payments, perks, and allowances can push total compensation far higher, and often into murky territory that invites public suspicion. The unions warned that any new pay plan must look at the whole package.
The commission also said it is trying to make the pay framework fair across government levels, and to reduce odd pay gaps where some agency directors are paid far more than ministers. They argue fairness matters for morale and to stop talent being siphoned away from public service into higher-paid wherewithal. The point was framed as a call for sanity in public pay, not a grab for luxury.
Still, the politics of pay are raw. When talk of salaries starts on a Monday in the capital, the message finds its way to market stalls and commuter buses by Tuesday. Citizens asked why public sector pay for ordinary workers is not the focus, or why the minimum wage debate does not get the same urgency. The unions used those arguments to press for a wider fix, not just an adjustment for the few.
There are legal steps to any change. The commission can recommend and propose, but implementation needs more arms of government to agree, and in some cases to sign off in law. Past episodes show that a recommended rise is only the start of a long road that requires negotiation and political will. The commission’s remit is clear, but so is the need for checks.
Economists and budget watchers say raising top pay without broad budget plans would be weak medicine. They point out that the size of the public wage bill, debt service, and projected revenues must all fit any pay decision comfortably, or else something else has to give. That view underlines how entangled pay changes are with broader fiscal choices.
For the man in the street, the debate is not abstract. People asked if higher pay for leaders will mean better service, less corruption, or faster action on power, roads, and hospitals. Skepticism runs deep, and many said they want clear, tight rules that limit discretionary perks and make pay transparent. Civil society groups added that transparency must be front and center.