The controversy over the implementation of the Harmonised Retirement Age for Teachers Act, 2022, in the Federal Capital Territory deserves a more sober examination than the increasingly emotive language surrounding it.
A recent opinion piece titled “Wike, stop harassing FCT teachers” presents the dispute largely as a case of persecution of teachers by the FCT Administration. It cites the “no vacancy” policy, the redeployment of some education officers, teachers’ promotion concerns and the state of public schools as evidence of what it portrays as an orchestrated campaign against FCT teachers.
But the letter of August 28, 2026, from the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), FCT Wing, signed by the State Chairman, Comrade Abdullahi Shafa, and the State Secretary, Comrade Margret Jethro, provides a more nuanced picture of the dispute.
The central concern raised by the NUT is not that teachers should not return to the classroom. Neither is the dispute simply about whether teachers should enjoy the extended retirement age.
Rather, the union is challenging the manner in which beneficiaries of the 2022 retirement arrangement are being redeployed and the possible consequences for institutional continuity and career progression.
That distinction matters.
The Harmonised Retirement Age for Teachers in Nigeria Act, 2022, extended the retirement age for teachers to 65 years and the length of service to 40 years. The policy was designed to retain experienced personnel in the teaching profession. It did not, by itself, create an unrestricted entitlement to remain indefinitely in a particular administrative position.
This is where the argument that every administrative deployment of an affected teacher amounts to “harassment” becomes difficult to sustain without examining the circumstances of each case.
The FCT Administration has responsibilities beyond the interests of individual officers. It must manage schools, personnel, promotions, vacancies, postings and succession within the education service. If administrative positions have become congested because officers are remaining in service for longer periods, the government has a legitimate management problem to address.
That problem should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards teachers.
The NUT’s August 28 letter, however, raises a legitimate question that should not be dismissed either: how should the government implement the extended retirement policy without undermining the experience, dignity and career expectations of the affected officers?
That is the real debate.
The original article also presents the redeployment of education officers to schools as evidence of an attempt to provoke teachers into abandoning their extended years of service. That is a serious inference, but an inference nonetheless. Unless documentary evidence establishes such an intention, it should not be presented as an established fact.
There is a significant difference between questioning a government policy and attributing motives to those who designed it.
The circular reportedly referenced by the unions is particularly relevant. It provides for successful beneficiaries of the extended retirement arrangement to be deployed to serve as teachers in schools or as quality assurance officers at appropriate levels.
Consequently, the mere fact that an officer who has previously held an administrative position is posted to a school cannot, on its own, establish victimisation. The question should instead be whether the posting complies with the applicable rules, respects the officer’s grade and professional status, and serves a legitimate educational purpose.
The same caution should apply to the argument about senior officers serving under principals who may be junior in rank.
Hierarchy in public administration can be complicated. Rank, office, professional responsibility and reporting relationships do not always operate on a simple seniority formula. A Grade Level 17 officer working in a school does not automatically invalidate the authority structure of that school merely because the principal occupies a lower grade.
What matters is whether the posting is lawful, professionally appropriate and administratively workable.
The ASUSS FCT Abuja circular, signed by its State Chairman, Comrade Julius Ogundiran, and State Secretary, Comrade Musa Mohammed, adds another dimension to the debate. The involvement of both the NUT and ASUSS demonstrates that the matter has implications for the wider teaching profession, but it does not, by itself, settle the substantive disagreement.
Trade unions have an important role in defending their members. Government equally has a responsibility to administer the public service efficiently.
Neither responsibility should cancel out the other.
There is also a need to separate the retirement controversy from every other challenge confronting education in the FCT.
The original article links the dispute over teachers’ service years to examination performance, renovation delays, learning conditions and previous administrative changes. These are legitimate issues worthy of public scrutiny, but combining all of them into one argument risks obscuring the specific question currently before the authorities.
A school can have poor infrastructure without every administrative decision concerning teachers being discriminatory. Equally, a teacher can have a legitimate grievance about redeployment without every challenge facing FCT education being attributable to the Minister.
Public debate becomes more useful when these issues are examined separately.
There is also nothing inherently contradictory about retaining experienced teachers while creating opportunities for younger officers. Both objectives can exist within the same education system if government develops a clear succession and deployment policy.
Indeed, this is where the FCT Administration should direct its attention.
If experienced teachers are to remain in service until 65 or complete 40 years, government must have a transparent framework for determining where their experience is most useful. At the same time, younger teachers must not be left without reasonable opportunities for promotion and leadership.
A phased arrangement could therefore be considered, subject to the applicable laws and regulations.
Experienced officers could be deployed according to their qualifications, institutional needs and professional experience, while vacancies created through retirement and other forms of separation are systematically used to promote eligible younger officers.
Such an arrangement would address both sides of the argument.
The NUT’s position that the 2022 law should be implemented without discriminatory administrative bottlenecks deserves serious consideration. But the union’s demand should also be matched by a willingness to recognise the government’s responsibility to manage personnel and schools in the public interest.
Similarly, the FCT Administration should not interpret every union objection as resistance to government policy.
The best solution is neither confrontation nor propaganda.
It is dialogue backed by documents, rules and facts.
The FCTA should therefore meet with the NUT, ASUSS and other relevant education stakeholders and place the disputed policy on the table. The applicable legislation, federal guidelines, staff records, vacancies, grade levels, professional qualifications and the operational needs of schools should all be examined.
Such engagement could answer several questions that are currently generating controversy.
Which categories of officers are affected? What positions did they previously occupy? What positions are they being posted to? What does the relevant federal guideline require? Are the postings temporary or permanent? How will younger officers progress? And what mechanism exists for an affected officer who believes a particular posting is inconsistent with the rules?
These are the questions that deserve answers.
The claim that FCT teachers are being deliberately “harassed” may make for a compelling headline, but it does not adequately resolve the policy question.
Nor does criticism of the FCT Administration automatically mean that teachers are right on every aspect of the dispute.
The teachers deserve respect. The unions deserve to be heard. The FCT Administration deserves the opportunity to explain its policy. And, above all, FCT pupils deserve an education system that is not repeatedly disrupted by avoidable industrial and administrative disputes.
The 2022 retirement law was intended to preserve experience in the teaching profession. It should not become a source of conflict between experienced officers and younger personnel.
The way forward is therefore not to portray the disagreement as a personal battle between Wike and FCT teachers. It is to insist on transparency in implementation, fairness in deployment, respect for the law and a workable succession plan.
That would be a more constructive reading of the NUT’s August 28 letter and the subsequent ASUSS position.
Ultimately, the issue is bigger than one minister, one union or one group of teachers.
It is about whether the FCT can implement a national policy designed to retain experienced educators while simultaneously building an education service in which younger professionals can advance, schools can function effectively and pupils receive the quality education they deserve.
That is the debate the public should be having.
