In his August 16, 2011 article on Elendureports, Mr. Soji Soje tried desperately to establish a contrast between the state's pension policy for political office holders and the civil servants. It turns out, however, that the only contrast that emerged out of an 

otherwise poorly articulated write-up is the one between the bogus insinuations contained in the write-up and the reality on the ground.

First, it was very difficult to determine from the article whether the man was more concerned about the fate of the state's pensioners or the fortunes of its past political office holders. Just as it was difficult to understand the cause of the confusion arising from his failure to distinguish between what is essentially state policy and the actions of a single man in the person of the immediate past governor of Kwara State. Perhaps the confusion was because the writer was simply ignorant of the facts. Or maybe, it was simply the result of mischief disguised as advocacy. Whatever it was, the only way to rescue the man from his confusion is to state the facts as they are. And here are the facts.

The rules providing for the payment of pension to past governors and deputy governors in Kwara State is explicitly dealt with by the provisions of the 'Governor and Deputy Governor Payment of Pension Law, 2010'. In very plain language, the law prescribes 'the payment of pension at the rate equivalent to the annual basic salary of the incumbent governor or deputy governor and other benefits as provided by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission .'

While this introductory part of the act provides a summary picture of the entire emoluments of past governors and deputy governors in Kwara State, subsequent sections of the act itemised the 'other benefits' most of which are not necessarily monetary payments but services to be provided by the state for the benefit of the former governor and deputy governor. These services were precisely spelled out in the act, and in no way add up to anything close to the N1.2 billion pension quoted by the author in the said article.

If the author had made any kind of effort, he would have found this to not only be the case but largely consistent with the standards prescribed the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission for this category of former public office holders. He would also have realized that the pension provisions for former governors and deputy governors is not only limited to the immediate past officials of the state; that the statute of entitlement for the said pension benefits extends to all former governors and deputy governors from 1967. The facts, indeed, are plain enough for anyone to discern.

But even more compelling are the ones that are not so plain to see, only because former Governor Bukola Saraki has not chosen to make a song and dance of his previous position on what he considers reasonable and appropriate pension payment for former political office holders. It is on record that of all former Governors who are entitled to payment of pension, former Governor Bukola  Saraki is the first and only former Governor who rejected what was recommended for him in the pension bill and also directed that it should be scaled down to reflect the state of Kwara's finances. To further underscore the seriousness of his position, he warned that he would not sign it into law until the excessive benefits were removed from the provisions.

In keeping with his uncompromising stand on moderation in the pension provisions, he also rejected a house in Abuja, cut down medical allowances and the number of staff provided for him. This is in contrast to other former Governors whose states built houses for them in Abuja and Lagos.

As for how much money Dr. Saraki has received as pension since he left Kwara Government House, the writer and the aggrieved pensioners would be surprised to find that not one penny has been paid to the former governor since he left office. And here is the real contrast: While Kwara pensioners, whose interest the writer purports to serve, are only making a case for the balance of their pension arrears, the former Governor (whom the writer maliciously accused of engineering the pension legislation) has not been paid anything. This piece of information is so readily verifiable and would have been told along with the rest of the story, if only the author(s) of the publication had not been preoccupied with peddling mischief.

So the issue of the N1.2 billion 'pension payment' remains glaringly out of context given the facts that have been presented thus far. Maybe the writer was simply referring to the same N1.2 billion naira contract purportedly awarded by the Dr. Bukola Saraki administration for the construction a building which was supposed to serve as 'part of pension for ruling the state for 8 years.' But this, like the allegation on the amount of pension paid to the former governor, cannot be farther from the truth. There is simply nothing to this claim because the government of Dr. Bukola Saraki did not award any such contract, not to mention the payment of any or all monies up front for the execution the said building project. The authors claimed that their 'findings' was the product of some investigation, but one wonders at the kind of investigation that would produce wild allegations which cannot even measure up to the standard of a classic beer parlour gossip.

So where did all the fabrications come from? First, it is plain to see that mischief was the main and sole motive. For whatever reason, only the sponsors can explain. Clearly, the authors cannot claim to be promoting the interest of Kwara pensioners when their preferred method of doing so is by maligning another pensioner who has not fared better. Perhaps the authors of the story would still explain to Kwara pensioners how their interests have been served by outrageous claims and untenable comparisons. Would the writer have reached the same sensational conclusions if the more appropriate comparison has been made with other states with similar or more generous pension provisions for their political office holders? How come the publication did not say anything about the severance provisions by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, relative to the provision of the Kwara State Pension Law? Not even the fact that these provisions have not yet been implemented by the state government in favour of its past political office holders.

Of course the motive of the authors of the article is anything but honorable. And here is why: The writer purports to be interested in some imaginary 'Pension Contrast in Kwara State' as was clearly the subject of the article, but quickly forgot that the focus was about pension administration in Kwara State. He started talking about the status of some properties allegedly acquired and used as government house in 2003; compensation for owners of demolished properties; revenue accruing to the state from the Federation Account. He raised so many questions but was apparently in no mood to seek or provide intelligent answers. It turns out the writer and his sponsors were only interested in mindless insinuations and spurious allegations.

However, Dr. Saraki would not be deterred by the activities of these hatchet men or their paymasters. His record in Kwara will continue to serve as testimony of his commitment to the transformation of the state. He is focused on providing quality representation for the state just as he is committed to building a Nigeria that caters for the aspirations of all its people, whatever their class or calling. Those who share in this vision have lent their voice in acknowledgment of the man's revolutionary traits. Those who do not may continue to serve as tools for those who have other agenda beside the transformation of Kwara State. Of this other group, Dr. Saraki can only hope that they will open their minds enough to see beyond the antics of the misguided minority.

* Adebimpe is media aide to Dr. Bukola Saraki