Failure to enact pension laws: Breach of constitutional and international labour standards by six state governments

Report by Ivo Takor, mni Esq.

Introduction

The right of public servants to receive pensions and gratuities after retirement is a fundamental labour right recognized under Nigerian constitutional law and international labour standards. Despite this, six state governments—Akwa Ibom, Borno, Kwara, Plateau, Cross River, and Yobe—have failed to enact laws regulating the payment of pensions to their public servants, over two decades after the repeal of the Pension Act of 1990 by the Pension Reform Act 2004. This omission constitutes a gross breach of Section 210 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and a clear violation of Nigeria’s obligations under international labour conventions.

Constitutional Framework: Section 210 and the Legal Vacuum

Section 210(1) of the Constitution states: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the right of a person in the public service of a state to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.”Subsection (2) further asserts: “Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except as is permissible under any law, including the code of conduct.”

The import of these provisions is unambiguous: state governments are constitutionally mandated to enact specific legislation to regulate pension entitlements and payments. The use of the term “shall” denotes a binding obligation, not a discretionary act.

However, with the repeal of the Pension Act 1990 via Section 98(1)(a) of the Pension Reform Act 2004, effective from 25th June 2004, the foundation for pension administration previously applicable across all tiers of government was dismantled. In its place, states were expected to enact their own pension laws in compliance with the new pension regime or maintain distinct laws governing the payment of pension to retirees under the old scheme. The six states in question have failed to do either.

The Legal Question: Under What Law Are These States Paying Pensions?

Given that the law of general application—the Pension Act 1990—ceased to exist over two decades ago, the continued payment of pensions by these six states without valid enabling laws raises troubling legal questions:

•​What legal instrument governs these payments?

•​What regulatory framework ensures that pension rights are not arbitrarily altered or withheld?

•​How are pension liabilities being funded, administered, and audited in the absence of a legal framework?

The absence of state pension laws leaves room for executive arbitrariness, lack of transparency, and systemic abuse of retirees’ entitlements. It also constitutes a direct affront to the principles of the rule of law, fiscal accountability, and due process.

Violation of International Labour Standards

Nigeria as a member state of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has ratified numerous international labour conventions and instruments, including:

•ILO Convention No. 102 on Minimum Standards of Social Security;

•ILO Convention No. 128 on Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits;

•The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22, which recognizes the right to social security.

These international instruments place an obligation on member states to ensure that retired workers are entitled to social protection, including pension rights, through an established legal framework. The failure of these six states to enact pension laws contravenes these obligations and undermines Nigeria’s credibility in the global labour community.

Labour and Human Rights Implications

The practical implications of this legal vacuum are severe:

The Duty of the States Assemblies as Watch Dogs Over the Executive

In Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, State Houses of Assembly are not just law-making bodies but also crucial watchdogs over the executive. Sections 128 and 210 of the 1999 Constitution mandate them to legislate and provide oversight, especially on matters like public servant pensions. However, six states—AkwaIbom, Borno, Kwara, Plateau, Cross River, and Yobe—have failed to enact pension laws since the repeal of the Pension Act in 2004.

This inaction represents a breach of constitutional duty and legislative oversight, leaving retirees without legal protection or guaranteed entitlements. It enables executive impunity, erodes public trust, and endangers retirement security. The responsibility for this failure lies not only with the governors but also with the legislators. Civil society, labour unions, and the judiciary must step in to demand accountability. Without active legislative oversight, democratic governance is weakened, and vulnerable citizens suffer.

The Duty of Trade Unions to Their Members and the Consequences of Inaction on Pension Law Enforcement in Six States

Trade unions, especially in the public sector, have a constitutional and moral responsibility to protect their members’ rights, including securing adequate retirement benefits. In six states—Akwa Ibom, Borno, Kwara, Plateau, Cross River, and Yobe—where pension laws have not been enacted since the repeal of the Pension Act 1990, unions must act through advocacy, legal action, and public mobilization.

Their inaction has serious consequences: it erodes retirees’ rights, weakens trust in unions, encourages government impunity, and diminishes the labour movement’s influence. The unions’ failure to respond is a neglect of duty, and they must urgently reclaim their role in defending workers’ rights, both during and after service.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The failure of Akwa Ibom, Borno, Kwara, Plateau, Cross River, and Yobe to enact pension laws is not a mere administrative oversight—it is a constitutional infraction and a violation of internationally protected labour rights. These states must immediately take legislative steps to rectify this breach by enacting appropriate pension laws to protect the rights and dignity of their public servants.

To continue operating outside the bounds of law is not only indefensible—it is unconstitutional, unjust, and unsustainable.