By Gabriel Ameh
Questions have emerged over the computation of years of service and retirement eligibility at the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), with concerns raised about how previous employment in the public service is taken into account.
The concerns follow claims that the NCC has, in recent years, retired directors who had spent eight years in their positions, following the implementation of a government directive relating to tenure in the public service.
The directive, which has reportedly been implemented by several government institutions, has also seen some organisations adopt alternative designations, including General Manager and Coordinating Director, in managing the tenure provisions.
However, concerns have now been raised about whether the computation of the mandatory 35 years of service is being applied consistently to officers whose careers in the public service began before joining the NCC.
The issue gained renewed attention following a video from a recent retirement/send-off event involving an NCC director, who reportedly said he had spent 39 years in public service.
According to the account, the officer attributed his ability to remain in service for that period partly to the way his years of service were computed.
The concerns centre on an allegation that only the officer’s years within the NCC were considered in determining his length of service, while earlier periods spent working elsewhere in the public service were not fully included.
If accurate, such a practice could have implications for officers who began working after obtaining secondary school, Ordinary National Diploma (OND) or National Certificate in Education (NCE) qualifications before subsequently obtaining higher qualifications and moving into other public institutions.
The issue is particularly relevant to older public servants whose careers may have started in the 1980s or early 1990s, when it was common for holders of OND or NCE qualifications to work for a period before proceeding to Higher National Diploma (HND) or other higher-level programmes.
Questions have therefore been raised over whether all qualifying periods of public service are being properly captured when determining an officer’s eligibility to remain in service up to the statutory retirement threshold.
The controversy also raises broader questions about the consequences of inconsistent service-year calculations, particularly where an officer may have remained in employment beyond the applicable retirement limit.
Some observers have expressed concern that if an officer is subsequently found to have exceeded the legally permitted period of service, decisions, appointments or documents issued during such a period could potentially become subjects of administrative or legal review.
There could also be implications for salaries and other benefits paid during periods subsequently determined to have fallen outside the officer’s lawful tenure, depending on the applicable public service rules and the circumstances of each case.
The concerns are not limited to the NCC. They potentially touch on the wider administration of retirement and tenure rules across Nigeria’s public service.
The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and relevant public service authorities may therefore need to provide clearer guidance on how previous public-sector employment should be treated when calculating an officer’s total years of service.
A comprehensive review could help establish uniformity across Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), particularly for officers whose careers span multiple public institutions.
Such clarification would also help reduce uncertainty among public servants and minimise the risk of disputes and litigation arising from inconsistent interpretation of service and retirement regulations.
The NCC and relevant authorities may need to clarify the basis for their computation of years of service and explain whether previous qualifying periods spent in other public institutions are included when determining the 35-year retirement threshold.
Until such clarification is provided, questions surrounding the application of the rule could continue to generate concern over retirement decisions, appointments and other official actions taken by officers whose length of service is disputed.
