Connect with us

Headline

Policemen Protest Salary Deductions in Lagos

Published

on

Hundreds of policemen on Monday stormed the Mechanised Salary Section (MSS) of the Lagos State Police Command in Oduduwa, in the Ikeja area of the state, to protest against what they described as “outrageous and unexpected” deductions from their salaries.

The policemen, comprising rank and files, as well as officers, said between N5,000 and N35,000 were deducted from their February salaries, while others lamented that they had not been paid for the month

Some of the affected policemen, who spoke to PUNCH Metro on condition of anonymity, blamed the development on the Integrated Personnel Payroll Information System of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation which pays their salaries.

The majority of the cops, who complained that their salaries were meagre, stated that the deductions had dealt a blow to them as they could not meet up with their needs.

Officials at the MSS office were said to have told the aggrieved policemen that the centre was not responsible for the deduction and gave them forms to lodge their complaints.

A police inspector said he was amazed when he received an alert for his February salary and discovered that N19,800 had been deducted.

He said, “I got the alert on March 8. My salary is N70,000. They deducted N19,800 from it and I was paid about N50,000. It is a fraud. That was why I came here (MSS office) to complain. We were told that the deduction was made by the IPPIS.

“I am almost 20 years in service and I have a wife and children to cater to. The N70,000 is not enough for our upkeep in the first place. This is criminality of the highest order and we want it to stop.”

A policeman and father of three children, who is attached to a police unit in the Ikeja GRA, said he was also surcharged by N20,000, adding that the MSS had promised to send their complaints to Abuja.

He said when he arrived at the MSS office around 9am to lodge his complaint, he met over 300 policemen who had come for the same issue.

“Some of them said they got there at 7am. The IPPIS is responsible for the deduction without giving us any explanation. Even some officials at the MSS were also affected. I am aware that there is a circular regarding the delay in salary payment, but the deduction is strange and outrageous.” he added.

As of 3pm when our correspondent left the MSS office, some policemen were still filling complaint forms.

An Assistant Superintendent of Police, who forcefully parted with N35,000, said the deduction was an indication that the government did not care about the welfare of policemen.

He said, “If N35,000 was deducted from my salary as an ASP, imagine what would be deducted from my superiors’ salaries. Some of them were surcharged by N50,000 or N70,000. It is unfair.”

A corporal, who lamented that he had not been paid for the month of February, said many of his mates were paid between N5,000 and N7,000 less than their normal salary.

“The IPPSI is a new scheme introduced for the payment of our salary. As I speak to you, I have not got my February salary. The issue is not peculiar to policemen in Lagos,” he added.

A police sergeant serving in a police formation in Abuja told our correspondent on the telephone that N9,000 was deducted from her salary. She said although they had not been formally briefed on the reason for the deduction, she learnt it was meant for tax.

She said, “I felt sad when I saw my salary. While I was lamenting, a colleague, who is also a sergeant, said N15,000 was deducted from his salary. They are just stealing us blind.”

The Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Moshood Jimoh, in a statement on Monday said the command finance officers in the 42 MSS centres across the country had been trained to ensure that issues arising from the salary payment were collated and referred to the budget office at the Force headquarters for resolution.

“However, some challenges such as underpayment, omission of names on payroll, non-payment and overpayment of some police personnel currently being experienced in some state commands enrolled on the platform of the IPPIS in the payment of February 2018 salary, have been taken up with the office of the Accountant General of the Federation and it is being addressed…no policeman protested in any state of the country over migration to IPPIS,” the statement read in part.

When contacted on the telephone, the Head of Media Office of Accountant General of the Federation, Mrs. Kene Offie, said she was not aware of the deductions.

She said, “I will find out and get back to you tomorrow (Today).”

The Punch

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Peter Obi Weeps for Nigerian Workers, Says Minimum Wage Can no Longer Guarantee Modest Living

Published

on

By

A frontline presidential aspirant on the platform of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), Peter Obi, has regretted that the minimum wage can no longer guarantee a most modest standard of living in Nigeria.

In a post on his X handle on Friday to mark Workers’ Day, the former Governor of Anambra State said this has happened as inflation, rising food prices, transportation costs, and economic hardship continue to erode the value of honest work.

He said no nation can truly develop beyond the strength, productivity, and wellbeing of its workforce, stressing that the progress of any society rests on the quality of its human capital, the skill of its people, and the commitment of its workers.

‘When workers suffer, the nation suffers. When workers are empowered, the nation prospers,” he noted.

The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 general elections said a productive nation must be built on justice, fairness, and respect for labour, adding that “it is the Nigeria we must work together to achieve.”

Obi said through democratic participation, the Nigerian workers have the power to shape governance and determine the future direction of the nation.

He, therefore, urged Nigerian workers to recognise the strength they hold collectively.

“But beyond their labour, workers also possess another powerful tool, their voice and their vote.

“They owe it to themselves, their children, and future generations to support and demand leadership built on competence, character, capacity, credibility, and compassion. By refusing to reward failure, corruption, ethnic division, and bad governance, they can help build a nation where hard work is respected and rewarded with dignity.

“With the support and participation of Nigerian workers, a new Nigeria is possible,” said Obi.

He saluted workers across the world, especially Nigerian workers whose daily sacrifices continue to sustain our families, communities, institutions, and national economy in the face of severe hardship and uncertainty.

Continue Reading

Headline

Attorney-General Asks Court to Deregister ADC, Accord, Three Other Parties

Published

on

By

The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune

Continue Reading

Headline

Supreme Court to Rule on ADC, PDP Leadership Crises Today

Published

on

By

Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.

Continue Reading

Trending