BREAKING: NSCDC Redeploys 79 Officers Without Financial Benefits, Personnel Protest Breach Of Service Rules

 

They alleged that the transfers were not requested by them and questioned how they would fund transportation and relocation to distant states from their salaries.

The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) has redeployed 79 officers between Akwa Ibom, Kwara and other state commands in a move that has triggered complaints from affected personnel over the absence of financial benefits attached to the transfers.

The redeployments were approved by the Commandant General of the NSCDC, Professor Ahmed Abubakar Audi, through four separate signals signed by Musa Farouk B.K. on behalf of the Commandant General.

The signals, which took immediate effect, redeployed 60 officers from the Akwa Ibom State Command to various state commands and 19 officers from the Kwara State Command to Akwa Ibom.

However, some of the affected personnel who spoke to SaharaReporters protested the transfers, particularly the directive that they relocate without any financial benefits.

They alleged that the transfers were not requested by them and questioned how they would fund transportation and relocation to distant states from their salaries.

One of the affected officers said the redeployment originated from the administration department following the alleged intervention of the Akwa Ibom State Commandant, Geraldine Sixtus.

“The above signal emanates from administration department through the instigation of Akwa Ibom State Command, Commandant Geraldine Sixtus,” the officer alleged.

The officer argued that officers transferred without requesting such movement should ordinarily receive financial support for the relocation.

“According to the Public Service Rules, a transfer that is not requested must be accompanied by a 28 days allowance which covers transportation and accommodation. But this particular transfer doesn’t carry such financial benefits,” the officer said.

SaharaReporters’ findings from the Public Service Rules

However, SaharaReporters’ review of the Federal Government Public Service Rules found provisions specifically dealing with resettlement and transport allowances for officers transferred from one station to another.

Rule 130132 states that resettlement allowance is granted as compensation for out-of-pocket expenses not covered by other regulations but incurred by officers in the course of a transfer.

Rule 130133 defines “transfer” for the purpose of the chapter to include movement from one station to another during a tour of service, as well as transfer from one station to another on return from leave and transfer or secondment from another government service in the Federation.

Rule 130134 provides that resettlement allowance “shall be paid at the rate of 2% of an Officer’s annual emolument.”

The rules also make a distinction between official transfers and transfers requested by officers.

Rule 130135 states: “An officer whose transfer is at his own request shall be entitled to only transport allowance and not resettlement allowance.”

The provisions reviewed by SaharaReporters therefore establish that the Public Service Rules recognise financial allowances in connection with qualifying official transfers, while officers who request their own transfers are specifically excluded from resettlement allowance and are entitled to transport allowance.

The Rules reviewed by SaharaReporters, however, do not contain the specific “28 days allowance” claimed by the affected personnel in the provision cited above.

Officers Raise Security, Financial Concerns

The affected personnel also questioned the decision to send officers from Akwa Ibom to distant parts of the country, including Sokoto, Kebbi, Gombe, Katsina, Jigawa and Yobe, without financial assistance.

“Because of the insecurity in the Northeast and Northwestern Nigeria, travelling by road has become a nightmare. Officers with their income cannot afford flight tickets,” one of the affected officers said.

The personnel argued that the creation of additional NSCDC zonal commands had reduced the need for officers to undertake extremely long-distance movements for administrative purposes.

“NSCDC has made it possible for various commands by creating more zonal commands so that states no more need to be travelling long distances,” the officer said.

They further alleged that the redeployment was selective, claiming that many of those affected were officers of Akwa Ibom origin who had spent more than 15 years in the command.

“This is a targeted victimization of officers of Akwa Ibom origin. She instituted this without the knowledge of the CG, and this transfer is not a nationwide transfer that reshuffles all personnel to various state commands. Our names were selected among other officers who have spent more than 15 years in the command,” one officer alleged.

The personnel also questioned the practicality of deploying officers to areas where they may have limited knowledge of the local language and terrain.

“An officer that does not understand the indigenous language, the terrain and coupled with insurgency, banditry in the North, how can he function effectively?” the officer asked.

“With the present economic situation, how can he pay his way to Sokoto, Gombe, Kebbi, etc. without financial allowance?”

The officers also argued that the nature of NSCDC’s operations makes knowledge of local communities and terrain important.

“NSCDC is a grassroots security agency comprising of indigenes as majority in all the 36 States including FCT, hence its effectiveness,” an affected officer said.

79 Officers Affected

The first three signals: 1083AKWA_CL, 1084 AKWA-CL and 1085 Akwa, each redeployed 20 officers from Akwa Ibom State Command, bringing the number transferred out of the command to 60.

The affected personnel include officers from the ranks of ASCI, SC, DSC, CSC, ACC and DCC. They were posted to several states across the country, including Niger, Ekiti, Katsina, Bauchi, Jigawa, Gombe, Kaduna, Taraba, Adamawa, Enugu, Kebbi, Plateau, Osun, Nasarawa, Imo, Kwara, Kogi, Ebonyi, Anambra, Abia, Bayelsa, Edo, Sokoto, Kano and Yobe.

The fourth signal, 1086, moved 19 officers from Kwara State Command to Akwa Ibom.

All four signals stated that the redeployments took immediate effect and carried no financial benefits. The affected personnel were directed to collect their redeployment letters personally or through proxies at the NSCDC National Headquarters.

The officers said the absence of financial benefits would make it difficult for them to meet the costs of transportation and relocation.

One of them also alleged that none of the affected personnel had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings that could justify the transfers as punishment.

“There was no offence committed by these officers. I am among. No query was issued, no panel was set to have made recommendations including transfer as punitive measure,” the officer said.

The officer further argued that the Public Service Rules did not provide for transfer as a punitive measure.

The affected personnel are therefore calling for a review of the redeployment and clarification of the basis for transferring them to distant state commands without financial benefits.

When SaharaReporters contacted the spokesperson for the Akwa Ibom State Command of the NSCDC, Ekerette Friday, he said the agency is a Federal Government agency, and its personnel are guided by the Public Service Rules (PSR) and other extant directives issued from time to time by the NSCDC.

“I have also seen the transfer signal that emanated from the National Headquarters of the NSCDC, transferring a number of officers from one state to another, predominantly in the North, which sparked much of the complaints,” he said.

“I have also seen where it is stated that the transfer attracts no financial benefits. I don’t know precisely why that is so. I think that should be above my pay grade.

“I don’t know precisely why that is so, but I know that the Public Service Rules state what should happen to a government official whenever he or she is transferred out of a state.”

He explained that the duty of care is entrenched in the public service and in corporate governance everywhere.

He said, “When officers are transferred from one place to another, for instance, if someone is transferred a distance of as much as 1,000 kilometree… Every organisation has a duty of care towards that officer.

“So, as I was saying, it is the responsibility of an employer to make those provisions. Why they have not been made, I do not have that information at the moment.

“So, all I can do is also find out from the authorities. But I have cited the transfer signal, and I have also seen the indication that there are no financial benefits attached to the transfers.

“But what I also know is that such stipulations, that there are no financial benefits, only occur when the transfer is requested by the individual, usually out of convenience, or when it is imposed on punitive grounds.

“Because one of the penalties that can arise from a disciplinary panel is transfer. One of the recommendations that a panel can make, especially for infractions that are not serious enough to amount to gross misconduct, is transfer.

“So, if none of those variables are in place, I think one may need to interrogate why that is so. That is where I stand on this matter.”

SOURCE: SAHARA REPORTERS