On May 18, 2020, PREMIUM TIMES published the story under the caption, “In rejigging FIRS, new chairman Nami recruits in violation of rules”.

The story reviewed the decision by the Board of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to appoint four new directors in March 2020 in violation of relevant rules. The appointments followed the retirement of nine of directors of the agency who had attained eight years in office and above. Both decisions were announced by the new chairman of the FIRS, Mohammed Nami, who announced the retirement of the nine directors.

The report showed that the appointments were done not only in violation of the provisions of the Public Service Rules, but also in defiance of the FIRS Human Resource Policies and Processes (HRPP) handbook. It also showed that the retirement of nine directors was in defiance of a subsisting presidential directive issued since 2016, which suspended the Federal Government tenure limit policy of two terms of four years for directors and permanent secretaries in the federal public service.

In doing the story, PREMIUM TIMES contacted and received the response of the FIRS on all the issues, particularly clarifications on the legal and the procedural bases of both decisions.

However, since the publication of the story, FIRS has spent several millions of public funds on sponsored publications in the media to call to question the integrity of PREMIUM TIMES without addressing any of the issues raised.

In the latest of the series of its sponsored advertorials, the FIRS accused PREMIUM TIMES of “blatantly twisting facts to create the impression that nepotism and tribalism are being entrenched in FIRS.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth. No section of the report conveyed any meaning (real, imagined or implied) to suggest the imputations by the FIRS. As a reputable media institution, which FIRS acknowledged, known for its unrelenting pursuit of truth and a firm believer in the sacredness of facts and the supremacy of the rule of law, PREMIUM TIMES stands by every word of the story.

What the FIRS should do is provide answers to the key issues raised in the story. They are unmistakable. For the benefit of clarity, we have distilled those issues here into nine questions here. Sincerely answering them will help Nigerians sift the truth from falsehood.

QUESTION ONE: Did the employment of the four new Directors follow due process?

CLAIMS: FIRS said the employment of the four new Directors followed due process, as it was based on the provisions of Section 2.22 of the HRPP for contract staff.


FINDINGS:

Section 2.22 (1) of the HRPP says: “Contract appointment shall only be made where the required skills and competence are not available within the Service. If there are no person(s) with the relevant experience, qualification, competence and skill from within the system to be appointed, the vacant positions must be advertised in the national newspapers for at least six weeks, if it is an external recruitment.”

If the FIRS Board relied on the above provision in employing the four former contract staff as Directors, is the FIRS saying none of the almost 300 experienced chartered accountants at both Directorate and none directorate cadres in FIRS were qualified and competent to be appointed as Directors of Finance and Accounts; Internal Auditor as well as Head of Communications Departments?

Before being appointed Director and head of the Communications Department, Abdullahi Isma’ila, was, as at December 2019, a contract staff hired by the new Chairman following his appointment. He was hired as Deputy Director and Special Assistant in the Executive Chairman’s office.

At the time of his employment as a contract staff, Mr Isma’ila was at the verge of completing his doctorate programme in English at the Ahmadu Bello University.

But, the then incumbent head of the Communications Department, Wahab Gbadamosi, a veteran journalist with many years of experience, was at the time already a deputy Director of many years.


Between December and March (barely three and a half months), Mr Isma’ila, a green horn in Communication matters, was promoted and appointed Director and head of the Communications Department, while Mr Gbadamosi was posted out to the FIRS training institute, which the FIRS described in its publication as “non-existent.”

Was the FIRS Board aware of this irregular appointment? At best Mr Isma’ila should be on probation for about six months before his confirmation of appointment and confirmation.

QUESTION TWO: Is the FIRS aware of the procedures for employment of contract staff in the public service?

Apart from the HRPP provisions for employment of contract, the PSR clearly spelled procedures for the appointment of persons into senior positions in the public service, whether in autonomous or non-autonomous entities in the public service.

Chapter 2, Section 2 of the PSR on “Authority for appointment” (Rule 02101) states: “Permanent Secretaries/Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments are authorized to make appointments to public offices on the authority of the Federal Civil Service Commission.”

Rule 02102 on “Appointment of Senior Posts” says such appointments shall be made into available vacancies after due advertisement in the national dailies in consultation with the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

By implication, the rule says appointment of persons into directorate positions can only take place where there are no qualified and competent personnel within the Service to fill such positions.

If such competent personnel are not available within the service, the PSR stipulates that the agency concerned should advertise the vacant positions in the national newspapers inviting interested qualified candidates to apply, to give all Nigerians equal opportunity to be employed.



QUESTION THREE: Did the FIRS follow the procedure in the recruitment of the four Directors? If yes, was there any staff audit conducted to determine the directorate positions that needed to be filled?

Was the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Finance aware of that need? Were the vacant positions advertised in the national newspapers? Which newspapers, journals or magazines were the advertisements published? When were the advertisements published and for how long?

If the Federal Civil Service Commission was not involved, because of FIRS’ claim of not being a Civil Service organization, was the Federal Character Commission involved, to ensure the process was transparent and those hired at the end of the exercise emerged in conformity with the federal character principle in the Nigerian Constitution?

Onyema Omenuwa, the principal counsel of an Abuja-based law firm, Okwubedo-Utchi Chambers, insisted the appointment of the four new directors were in disregard for due process.

“FIRS does not exist in a vacuum, as it is a creation of statute. Being so, the law setting it up always provides for the extent of its powers. Otherwise, it will be acting ultra vires its powers,” he said.

“One, theirs were external appointments, strictly speaking, because they were contract staff. Does it mean qualified persons don’t exist internally to take up the appointments, in accordance with Public Service Rules?

“Yet, if no qualified personnel exist, due process would still have been flouted by non-advertisement of the vacancies. What has played out is arbitrary exercise of appointment power by the FIRS. There should be sustained strident condemnation of it,” Mr Omenua said.

QUESTION FOUR: Is the FIRS aware the employment of the four directors violated Federal Character principle?

CLAIM:

The FIRS said not all the four new directors are Nupes. But, it admits two are from Niger States, while the others are from Kaduna and Bauchi States.

FINDINGS: But, was the Board of the FIRS aware that even if the four Directors were not all from Nupe tribe, they, along with the Executive Chairman, come from the same North Central geo-political zone?

QUESTION FIVE: Does the FIRS appreciate the implication of having its Chairman; head of Finance & Accounts department; head of Communication & Liaison department; head of the Office of the Executive Chairman department, head of Internal Affairs & Efficiency department and head of Internal Audit department as well as other Coordinating and Special Assistants from one geo-political zone?

Apart from these key officials in top management positions from the North Central geo-political zone, the FIRS says there is no nepotism or tribalism in the service.

With persons from a particular section of the country occupying key management positions in FIRS, would Nigerians be wrong if they hold the view that any infraction could easily be covered up by the arrangement being entrenched in this strategic revenue agency?

QUESTION SIX: Was the retirement of the nine directors done in accordance with the rules, and followed due process?

CLAIM: The FIRS management said the retirement of the nine Directors was “done in accordance with the rules” and “due process”, because “it approved by the Board.”

FINDINGS: In taking the decision, the FIRS said the Board relied exclusively on Section 10.1(a)(iii) of the FIRS’ Human Resource Policies and Processes (HRPP) staff handbook, which deals with its staff exit policy and compulsory retirement.

The Section, like the PSR, pegs the compulsory retirement age for all grades of staff in the Service at 60 years, or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier.

Also, the Section adds: “… a Director shall compulsorily retire upon serving eight years on the post.”

However, Section 1.8.2 of the HRPP reads: “All extant circulars, directives, notices, orders and other documents amending, giving further details and/or explanations to the provisions of this policy document (HRPP) hereto shall form part of the HRPP and shall equally be binding.”

Also, Section 1.8.3 of the HRPP states: “Where any matter is not provided for, or covered by this document (HRPP), recourse shall be made to the provisions of the Public Service Rule (PSR) in respect of such matter.”

QUESTION SEVEN: In taking the decision to retire the nine Directors, did the Board read the provisions in Section 10.1(a)(iii) of the HRPP alone, or along with the ancillary provisions in Sections 1.8(2) and (3) above?

If the Board did the latter, it would have realized that its authority to order the retirement of the nine directors based on the eight years tenure policy enunciated in Section 10.1(a)(iii) was ousted by President Muhammadu Buhari directive via letter No. SH/COS/100/A/1462 of June 17, 2016 ordering the immediate suspension of the tenue policy in the public service.

On the strength of that directive, the then Head of Service of the Federation, Winifred Oyo-Ita, on June 20, 2016, issued memo No. HCSF/428//S.1//139 to all heads of federal ministries, departments and agencies of the development.

The memo signed personally by Mrs Oyo-Ita read: “With reference to letter No. SH/COS/100/A/1462 dated 17th June, 2016, I write to convey Mr. President’s directive that Tenure Policy in the Federal Civil Service is suspended with immediate effect. The notice is for the attention of all concerned for compliance.”

Those copied in the memo were included Ministers of State, Permanent Secretaries, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Chairmen of the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC); Federal Character Commission; Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Others were the Chairmen of the National Population Commission (NPC); Independent Corrupt Practices and other Offences Commission (ICPC) and Chief Executives of Parastatals and Agencies as well as Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments, among others.

The Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) was 16th on the list of Chief Executives copied in the memo by the Head of Service.

As at March 20, when the retirement of the nine Directors was announced, PREMIUM TIMES was not aware, and FIRS has not produced any document to the contrary, of any other presidential directive, or legislation of the National Assembly, setting aside, annulling or overriding the subsisting presidential directive of June 20, 2016 on the issue.

QUESTION EIGHT: If the Chairman of FIRS was specifically listed among the Chief Executives of Parastatals and Agencies as well as Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments the Head of Service sent copies of the memo on the suspension of the tenure policy, what purpose was that supposed to serve if not for him to be aware and ensure compliance?

Has the clarification above not showed the FIRS Board clearly disobeyed the presidential directive suspending the eight-year tenure policy it relied on to take the decision to retire the nine Directors?

The lead director, Centre for Social Justice, Eze Onyekpere, said by virtue of the provisions of the HRPP above, the FIRS Board may have misled itself to believe it was on solid legal grounds to take the decision to retire the affected directors in defiance of the presidential directive suspending the tenure policy.

“When that directive suspending the tenure policy in the Federal Service was given by the president, well-meaning Nigerians condemned it. To the best of my knowledge, unpopular as it was, I am not aware it has been reversed yet. To that extent, the FIRS Board’s decision was illegal,” Mr Onyekpere said.

QUESTION NINE: Is FIRS more autonomous than CBN?

CLAIMS: The FIRS claims it was established pursuant to FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, as a Public Service and not a Civil Service; that Civil Service covers Ministries, Departments and Agencies of government without autonomous status, while Public Service includes, among others, FIRS, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), with autonomous status and functional Board of Directors.

As such, FIRS clams the circular by the Head of Service informing it of the Presidential directive on the suspension of tenure policy could not have been binding.

FINDINGS

If the content of the presidential directive was not meant for FIRS, or binding on its Board/management, why was its Chairman listed as No. 16 among the Chief Executives of Parastatals and Agencies as well as Heads of Extra-Ministerial Departments copied in the memo by the Head of Service?

Again, the Head of Service also sent the memo to autonomous institutions like the CBN, INEC, RMAFC and other parastatals and agencies as well as extra-ministerial departments “with autonomous statuses and functional Board of Directors” for their attention and compliance.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/397152-firs-recruits-in-violation-of-rules-nine-questions-for-tax-agency.html

This is gross

The North doesn’t follow rules.

Rules are meant for southerners

Time & time again, the evidences that this administration has a rotten agenda is exposed & yet, some individuals think that it is ok & all is well.

When the president is incompetent, don't expect so much from his appointees

There is nothing these dumbasses will not do just to ensure their hold unto power is maintained even if they have to sacrifice merit, bypass due process, practice their ethnic card.Nigeria is gone to the dogs.