The Cross River State Commissioner for Local Government Affairs, Chief Victor Felix Idem, has explained that the recent adjustment in the salaries of local government teachers was not a deliberate wage cut, but the reversal of an erroneous upward adjustment that had created a disparity between the earnings of local government teachers and their counterparts employed by the state. Idem said the action was taken to correct an irregularity in the payroll system and restore uniformity in the remuneration of teachers across the two services.
Idem, who spoke on the controversy surrounding the development, said the government discovered that local government teachers were earning more than their counterparts in the State Public Service, despite both categories of teachers being placed on the same salary grade levels and performing similar functions. According to him, “the local government salaries were discovered to be excessively higher” than those of their state counterparts, stressing that the disparity was not the outcome of any duly authorised government policy but arose from an erroneous adjustment in the Local Government Teachers’ Salary Structure.
The Commissioner said a review of the Revised Salary Structure for Teachers (RSST) applicable to the Local Government Service revealed that, while the basic salary and other statutory components were identical to those applicable to state-employed teachers, local government teachers were receiving additional payments.
According to Idem, the additional payments were not the product of an approved government wage policy and could therefore not be sustained once the anomaly was detected. “That money was given illegally; there was no approval or authorization by government for them to add such money to make it more than that of the state,” he said, maintaining that the government had a responsibility to correct an irregular payment structure once discovered.
The Commissioner further argued that describing the development simply as a salary reduction was unfair to the government, insisting that what had occurred was the correction of an earlier administrative error. “Instead of the government actually asking them to refund those monies they were paid illegally, we just left it and stopped paying the money,” he explained, stressing that government had opted for a less burdensome approach rather than immediately demanding repayment of the excess payments.
Idem said the decision was therefore part of a broader effort to harmonise the salary structure of teachers in the Local Government Service with that of teachers in the State Public Service. He explained that the objective was to ensure that teachers performing similar duties and occupying the same grade levels were remunerated under a consistent and equitable framework. “The government reverting it is to ensure that there is no industrial disharmony between the state teachers and the local government teachers,” he said.
The proposed harmonisation is expected to eliminate the disparity created by the additional allowances contained in the local government teachers’ salary structure and ensure equity, consistency and uniformity across the two services. Idem said the relevant authorities had been requested to initiate the necessary review, with the State Government Teachers’ Salary Structure made available for comparison and as a basis for aligning the two remuneration frameworks.
He disclosed that consultations had also taken place with representatives of organised labour as part of efforts to resolve the disparity and achieve an acceptable harmonisation of teachers’ salaries.
Idem said the issue had become necessary to address because maintaining two different remuneration outcomes for teachers on the same grade levels and performing similar functions could undermine fairness and create avoidable tension within the teaching service. He maintained that the harmonisation process was not designed to deprive teachers of legitimate earnings but to correct an anomaly and establish a properly authorised salary structure that could be applied consistently across the state and local government systems.
The Commissioner urged teachers, labour leaders and other stakeholders to properly understand the circumstances behind the adjustment rather than interpreting it as an arbitrary reduction in workers’ earnings. He maintained that the government’s position was essentially about correcting an administrative anomaly and restoring the appropriate salary structure, saying the ultimate objective was to ensure that teachers across Cross River State were treated equitably under a harmonised, consistent and sustainable remuneration framework.
