Such laws cited as examples by the plaintiffs were the Governors and Deputy Governors Pension Law 2014 of Akwa Ibom State; Lagos State Governor and Deputy Governor Pensions Law of 2007; Rivers State Pensions for Governor and Deputy Governor Law of 2012, Oyo State Pension (Governor and Deputy Governor) Law 2004; and Governor and Deputy Governor (Payment of Pension) Law No 12 of Kwara State 2010. Among their other prayers, the plaintiffs sought an order nullifying the said pension laws “or any other such laws enacted by any of the 37th to 72nd (Houses of Assembly) for being contrary to sections 1(3) and 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore is ultra vires, null and void”. They also asked for an order directing the various incumbent governors of various states to “recover forthwith from any former governor or former deputy governor any pension payment or out of office benefit paid or delivered to such former public officer beyond the remuneration stipulated by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act” An affidavit filed in support of the suit and deposed to by a lawyer with the Legal Defence and Assistance Project, Melissa Omene, stated, “There is no constitutional basis that permits or allows the 37th to 72nd defendants (Houses of Assembly) to enact law for payment of pension or any form of remuneration to the dependents, family members, domestic staff or widower of a former public office holder”. AGF, governors oppose suit The Attorney-General of the Federation and many of the states through their governors and their Houses of Assembly have responded to the suit. The defendants opposed the suit by filing separate notices of preliminary objection in which they contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit. They also filed substantive responses to the issues raised in the main suit in case the court finds no merit in their notices of preliminary objection. In both its “preliminary objection and substantive response to the suit, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation contended that the Attorney-General of the Federation joined as the 73rd defendant, “has no case to answer as far as this suit is concerned” and so be struck out as a defendant. In the notices of preliminary objection filed by some states jointly by their Houses of Assembly and governors, they asked the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiffs were allegedly unable to show the wrong they would suffer to warrant the suit, and so lacked the locus standi to institute the action. Rivers State, for instance, stated that the plaintiffs were pushing “speculative grievances”, adding that the whole of the plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of the suit “is vague, lacking in merit and offends the Evidence Act 2011”. Lagos State also maintained that the plaintiffs’ affidavit “is not only false, but misleading and speculative as there is no document to show that the said pension laws have been enacted”. Some of the defendants argued that the two individual persons among the plaintiffs did not show proof that they regularly paid taxes. The aggregate of the defendants’ rebuttal to the suit by the plaintiffs included the contention that the RMAFC Act “does not sufficiently cover the field of the subject matter (pension for governors and deputy governors) as canvassed by the plaintiffs”. Some maintained that the powers of RMAFC in its establishment Act made by virtue of section 32(d) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution stipulating remuneration of certain public office holders in Nigeria do not include pension of governors and deputy governors”. They contended that contrary to the plaintiffs’ position, “remuneration”, which RMAFC was empowered by the Constitution to determine, did not comprise “pensions or after service entitlement of governors and deputy governors”. “In the case of Peters of Oron V. Symnons (1924)5NLR 79 also cited by the plaintiffs ‘remuneration’ was defined as comprising salaries, wages allowances and commissions. Pension was not included,” Rivers State stated in its written addresses opposing the suit. The defendants maintained that under section 124(1) and (5) the Houses of Assembly “reserve the power to legislate on the areas not so covered”. Section 124(5) of the Constitution states, “Provisions may be made by a Law of a House of Assembly for the grant of a pension or gratuity to or in respect of a person who had held office as Governor or Deputy Governor and was not removed from office as a result of impeachment; and any pension granted by virtue of any provisions made in pursuance of this subsection shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State.” Governors’, deputies’ pensions illegal, plaintiffs insist But in their further reply to the defendants’ responses, the plaintiffs maintained that going by provisions of section 124(1) of the Constitution, the total remuneration governors and deputy governors were entitled “shall not exceed that set by the 74th defendant (RMAFC). The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Obiagwu argued, “In other words, the combined effect of sections 84(1) and 124(1) of the Constitution is that it is the RMAFC that sets the limit of remuneration of all public officers, whether at the state or federal level”. Akwa Ibom also specifically argued that previous pension law for governor and deputy governor in the state left some provisions open-ended and the new law enacted in 2014 “put a ceiling on the amount to be paid to the beneficiaries”. Since 2014 when the suit was instituted, no significant progress has been recorded, as the matter could not proceed to hearing because responses of the defendants only trickle in leaving over 40, including the RMAFC, out of the 74 defendants yet to respond to the suit. Meanwhile further proceedings have been fixed for September 14.]]>