Cross River Explains Teachers’ Pay Reversal, Says Move Corrects Payroll Anomaly
By BASSEY BENSON
Government Explains Controversial Pay Adjustment
THE Cross River State Government has explained its decision to reverse a recent salary adjustment affecting teachers employed by local governments across the state.
Commissioner for Local Government Affairs, Chief Victor Felix Idem, said the decision was not a deliberate wage cut.
He explained that the government was correcting what it described as an erroneous upward adjustment in the payroll of local government teachers.
According to him, the adjustment had created a disparity between local government teachers and teachers employed by the state.
The government, he said, moved to restore uniformity in the remuneration of teachers performing similar duties and occupying the same salary grade levels.
How the Pay Disparity Emerged
Idem said the government discovered that local government teachers were earning more than their counterparts in the State Public Service.
He attributed the difference to additional payments contained in the Local Government Teachers’ Salary Structure.
The Commissioner said a review of the Revised Salary Structure for Teachers showed that the basic salary and statutory components were the same for teachers in both services.
However, he said local government teachers were receiving additional payments that had not been authorised under an approved government wage policy.
He described the additional payments as an administrative anomaly that could not continue after its discovery.
Government Says It Did Not Order a Wage Cut
The Commissioner rejected the description of the development as an arbitrary salary reduction.
He said the government was instead reversing an earlier irregular adjustment.
According to him, the government could have demanded repayment of the additional money that had already been paid to affected teachers.
Instead, he said, it chose to stop the disputed additional payments without immediately asking workers to refund the money.
The decision, he argued, was intended to minimise the burden on teachers while correcting the payroll problem.
Concern Over Two Salary Outcomes
Idem said maintaining different remuneration outcomes for teachers on the same grade levels could create tension within the public education system.
He argued that teachers performing comparable duties should be remunerated under a consistent framework.
The government therefore decided to harmonise the salary structures applicable to teachers employed by local governments and those employed by the state.
He said the objective was to prevent what he described as industrial disharmony between the two groups.
Labour Consultations Underway
The Commissioner disclosed that relevant authorities had been asked to begin the necessary review process.
He said the State Government Teachers’ Salary Structure had been made available as a basis for comparing and aligning the two remuneration frameworks.
Consultations have also taken place with organised labour, according to the Commissioner.
The involvement of labour is expected to help address concerns among affected workers and provide a platform for resolving the controversy surrounding the adjustment.
The Question of Legitimate Earnings
At the centre of the controversy is the distinction between an approved salary entitlement and an additional payment arising from an administrative error.
The government maintains that legitimate salaries and statutory components remain intact.
Its argument is that payments outside the approved structure cannot be treated as permanent entitlements simply because workers had received them previously.
For affected teachers, however, the practical consequence remains a reduction in take-home pay compared with what they had recently been receiving.
That difference explains why the development has generated concern among workers and labour representatives.
Government Seeks Understanding
Idem urged teachers, labour leaders and other stakeholders to examine the circumstances surrounding the adjustment before concluding that the government had arbitrarily reduced workers’ salaries.
He maintained that the administration’s intention was to establish a consistent and sustainable salary structure.
The Commissioner also stressed that the exercise was not designed to deprive teachers of legitimate earnings.
Rather, he said, it was aimed at correcting what the government considered an unauthorised payroll anomaly.
The Broader Challenge
The Cross River salary controversy highlights the difficulties that can arise when different levels of government administer similar categories of workers under overlapping salary structures.
Where differences emerge without clear policy justification, questions of equity, payroll control and industrial harmony can follow.
The state’s decision to review and harmonise the structures is therefore intended to address both the immediate salary disparity and the administrative framework that produced it.
Whether the process succeeds will depend on the outcome of consultations with labour and affected teachers.
For now, the government’s position is that the reversal represents a correction of an irregularity rather than a new policy to reduce teachers’ legitimate wages.
