The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has been accused of a grave misinterpretation of public service rules, leading to directors being sent packing after just eight years in their current positions. This move, seemingly a swift implementation of a directive that originated under the Yar’adua administration, has left many questioning the commission's calculations and fairness.
While many organisations have found ways to navigate this directive, perhaps by renaming roles to General Manager or Coordinating Director to sidestep the strict eight-year rule for directors, the NCC appears to have taken a more rigid, and according to critics, erroneous approach. This has resulted in the premature retirement of what are described as young and able directors.
The crux of the controversy came to light recently with a video circulating from a send-off party for a retired NCC director. In his speech, the director revealed a striking detail: he had served a total of 39 years in the civil service. His extended tenure was possible, he explained, because he didn't spend the full eight years in the Director position at the NCC itself, and more crucially, the NCC's calculation of his 35 years of service completely ignored significant portions of his career spent in other government roles.
It appears the NCC's method of calculating the mandatory 35 years of service, as outlined in the conditions of service, was highly selective. Instead of accounting for an individual's entire career from their first job after secondary school, OND, or NCE (especially for those who began before 1991), the commission reportedly only considered time spent in service from the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) year, university graduation, or the date of joining the NCC.
This seems to be a systemic issue. It’s common knowledge that individuals who completed an OND or NCE often worked for two years before pursuing further studies like an HND or B.Tech. Anyone who completed these qualifications in the 1980s and is still in civil service could potentially be in breach of the 35-year rule if their entire service history isn't counted. The NCC's rigid interpretation risks putting these individuals in a position where their continued service is technically illegal.
And what happens if these calculations are truly wrong? The civil service has mechanisms to recover payments made during periods of illegal occupation of office past the retirement age of 60 or 35 years of service. Worse still, any positions attained during such periods would likely need to be reviewed, as the entire foundation of their appointment would be questionable. As the saying goes, you can't build a house on shaky ground and expect it to stand firm.
This situation calls for a thorough review by the new Head of Service, Abel Olumuyiwa, or his staff. A comprehensive, service-wide address is needed to prevent numerous potential litigations against the government arising from these flawed retirement calculations and potentially illegal appointments. The NCC, and potentially the Head of Service's office, could find themselves liable for these errors if not rectified promptly.
This problem isn't just about a few directors; it's about how public service is administered. If years of dedicated service are simply ignored because they weren't spent in a specific role or organisation, it erodes morale and questions the very notion of a career civil service. The NCC needs to get its house in order, ensuring that service years are calculated holistically, respecting the full tenure of its employees.