There is unease among staff of the National Assembly over a bill to extend the retirement age for the staff to 65 years or 40 years of service.
The House of Representatives had, last December, passed the Harmonised Retirement Age for Staff of the National Assembly Service Bill, 2024.
The Senate is also planning to give a concurrence to the bill.
The bill was, on Wednesday, listed on the Senate Order Paper among the items to be considered but was later stepped down, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio saying there was a need for further consultations.
The controversial bill during the 8th and 9th Assemblies suffered setbacks after various stakeholders opposed it, arguing that the extension of the retirement age from 60 to 65 years and 35 service years to 40 years would create redundancy and stagnancy among the workers.
2027: Reps ‘ll produce better Electoral Act – Speaker Abbas
Reps summon 256 MDAs over N284.3bn extra-budgetary spending
The staff of the National Assembly under the aegis of the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria (PASAN) under the chairmanship of Bature Musa had rejected the bill in its entirety.
It rather admonished the management of the National Assembly to ensure the full implementation of the welfare and allowance packages as contained in the service’s conditions of service.
In the wake of the controversy trailing the plan to enforce a new condition of service, the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC) had directed that the status quo on the 35 years and 60 years of age whichever comes first should be maintained.
The bill, if it scaled through, would extend the service years of over 200 workers who are due to retire between 2024 and 2026 including the current clerk, Sani Magaji Tambawal, according to records from the National Assembly.
Parliamentary staff in the National Assembly said the fresh move by the Senate to consider the controversial bill was counterproductive.
However, a group of staff of the apex lawmaking body has rejected the move by the Senate to concur with the decision of the House of Representatives, citing the same reasons adduced by the union in 2019.
The staff queried the move, asking what has changed in 2024 that is motivating the present Assembly to buy into the bill to the extent that it is in a hurry to get it passed.
They called on the leadership of the Senate to throw away the bill in the public and national interest.
However, a top management staff, who pleaded to be anonymous, absolved the current clerk from the ongoing move for tenure extension.
