JALINGO — A controversy over the deduction of ₦5,000 from the salaries and arrears of some primary school teachers in Taraba State has deepened, with the Taraba State Universal Basic Education Board (TSUBEB) defending the payment as a legitimate charge for permanent identity cards, while affected teachers have rejected the explanation as unacceptable and demanded a refund.
The dispute has placed the Board and the affected teachers on opposite sides of a question that goes beyond the cost of an identity card: who should bear the cost of personnel identification and database management in the state’s basic education system?
While TSUBEB maintains that the deduction is part of a broader administrative reform designed to modernise personnel management, the teachers allege that the exercise amounts to an arbitrary deduction from their earnings and question both the cost and the process through which the payment was imposed.
TSUBEB: Deduction Is for Permanent Identity Cards
In its clarification, TSUBEB dismissed reports of illegal deductions from teachers’ salaries and arrears, saying the ₦5,000 payment was approved for the production of permanent identity cards.
The Board said the initiative was conceived as part of efforts to strengthen personnel records and improve administration across primary schools in the state.
According to TSUBEB, the proposal was discussed with and supported by the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), Taraba State Wing, following consultations between the two bodies.
The Board said the identity cards would provide teachers with a verifiable means of identification while improving staff records, security and personnel management.
It also said the project would assist the administration of Governor Agbu Kefas in developing a more accurate and verifiable database of teachers, which could support planning, deployment, monitoring and other policy decisions.
The Board further explained that the cards would contain modern security features intended to facilitate identification and accountability.
TSUBEB Links Project to Wider Reform
A senior TSUBEB director, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the ID card initiative as part of broader reforms under the leadership of the Board’s Chairperson, Mrs Christiana Binga.
According to the official, consultations had been carried out with stakeholders, including the NUT, to ensure wider participation in the reforms.
The director described the objective as moving the Board towards a more digital system of personnel management and accountability.
Some education stakeholders and head teachers have also reportedly welcomed the initiative, arguing that a credible database and reliable identification system could help address problems such as impersonation, inaccurate records and ghost workers.
They further argued that improved personnel records could help government ensure that education-sector interventions and welfare packages reach genuine beneficiaries.
Teachers Reject TSUBEB’s Explanation
The affected teachers, however, have strongly rejected the Board’s explanation.
In a rejoinder signed by Comrade Rilwanu Aliyu Dasso II, spokesperson for Concerned Affected Teachers, the teachers described the TSUBEB clarification as “baseless” and “misleading.”
They questioned the justification for charging teachers ₦5,000 for an identity card, arguing that the amount was excessive for what they described as a standard plastic ID card.
The teachers alleged that the charge amounted to over-invoicing and extortion, although the claims have not been independently established.
They also challenged TSUBEB’s assertion that the NUT supported the exercise.
According to the affected teachers, any agreement between TSUBEB and NUT leadership should not automatically be regarded as consent from individual teachers whose salaries or arrears are being deducted.
They argued that rank-and-file teachers should have been adequately informed and consulted before any deduction was made.
Who Should Pay for Personnel Management?
One of the fundamental disagreements between the two sides concerns responsibility for the cost of personnel management.
TSUBEB argues that the identity-card initiative is part of an administrative reform intended to improve the education system.
The affected teachers, however, contend that personnel identification, biometric records and database management are administrative responsibilities of the employer and should ordinarily be funded through government budgets rather than compulsory deductions from teachers’ earnings.
The teachers also argue that, if the ID card initiative is genuinely voluntary or a service for teachers, the Board should have made the payment an opt-in arrangement rather than deducting the money from salaries or arrears.
The NUT Question
The role of the Nigeria Union of Teachers has emerged as another contentious aspect of the dispute.
TSUBEB says the initiative was discussed with and supported by the NUT Taraba State Wing.
The affected teachers, however, say consultation with union leadership does not necessarily amount to individual consent from every teacher affected by the deduction.
This raises a broader question about representation: Can a union leadership agreement authorise a financial deduction from individual members without clear communication and consent from those members?
That question may require clarification from the NUT itself.
Transparency at the Centre of the Dispute
Both sides have invoked the principle of transparency, but from markedly different perspectives.
For TSUBEB, transparency means explaining the purpose of the deduction and defending the administrative rationale behind the identity-card project.
For the affected teachers, transparency would require disclosure of the details behind the ₦5,000 charge, including the procurement process, cost of production, specifications of the cards, number of teachers affected and how the funds are being accounted for.
The teachers argue that if the project is legitimate, government should be able to provide documentation showing how the amount was determined.
That information could potentially settle one of the most contentious aspects of the dispute: whether ₦5,000 represents a reasonable cost for the cards and associated identification services.
Teachers Demand Refund
The affected teachers have made three principal demands.
First, they want an immediate halt to further deductions connected with the ID card project.
Second, they are demanding a refund of the ₦5,000 already deducted from affected teachers.
Third, they have called on Governor Agbu Kefas to investigate the project and intervene in the dispute.
They argue that teachers should not have their already limited earnings reduced through what they consider an unjustified administrative levy.
TSUBEB Rejects Allegation of Unrelated Financial Obligation
TSUBEB, for its part, has maintained that the deduction is specifically connected to the production of the permanent identity cards.
The Board said it was incorrect to suggest that the exercise was linked to a loan, repayment arrangement or another financial obligation unrelated to the ID card project.
It also warned against what it described as attempts by “mischief makers” to discredit its reforms and create unnecessary tension among teachers and members of the public.
The Board reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, accountability and teachers’ welfare, urging stakeholders to verify information through official channels.
What Remains Unanswered?
Despite the competing statements, several questions remain open.
- Was the ₦5,000 deduction formally authorised, and under what government policy or administrative instrument?
- Was the deduction communicated individually to affected teachers before it was made?
- Did the NUT formally approve the arrangement, and what exactly did its approval cover?
- How many teachers are affected?
- What is the total amount expected to be collected?
- What is the actual cost of producing each card?
- Was the project subjected to procurement procedures?
- Will teachers receive receipts or other evidence of payment?
- Is the ₦5,000 a one-off payment or will there be future charges for replacement or renewal?
These questions are important because the controversy is not simply about the price of an ID card. It concerns public-sector deductions, workers’ rights, administrative responsibility and financial accountability.
A Reform Worth Examining
There is little dispute that a reliable database of teachers could be valuable to Taraba’s education system.
Accurate personnel records can help government plan effectively, identify genuine employees, improve deployment and potentially reduce payroll fraud.
Similarly, permanent identification cards can have legitimate uses in personnel management and security.
The controversy arises over how the project is financed, how the amount was determined and whether affected teachers were adequately consulted before deductions were made.
A potentially useful reform could therefore become a source of distrust if the financial and administrative processes surrounding it are not sufficiently transparent.
The Way Forward
The dispute could be resolved through greater disclosure rather than competing accusations.
TSUBEB could publish the relevant approval documents, procurement details, specifications, number of cards to be produced and the cost breakdown supporting the ₦5,000 charge.
The NUT could also clarify its position and explain the nature of its consultation with TSUBEB.
For their part, the affected teachers could provide evidence of the deductions and formally present their concerns through established labour and administrative channels.
An independent review, if considered necessary, could determine whether the deductions complied with applicable rules and whether the amount charged corresponds with the actual cost of the project.
Beyond the ₦5,000
At stake is more than the money deducted from individual teachers.
For TSUBEB, the ID card initiative represents part of an effort to modernise basic education administration.
For the affected teachers, however, the controversy is about protecting their earnings and ensuring that government agencies do not impose deductions without adequate justification and consultation.
Both positions deserve scrutiny.
The Board has a responsibility to demonstrate that the project is legitimate, properly approved and transparently implemented. The teachers, meanwhile, have a legitimate interest in demanding clarity over deductions from their salaries and arrears.
Until the relevant documents, financial details and approvals are made available, the dispute is likely to continue.
For Taraba’s education sector, the best outcome would be one in which administrative reform, workers’ welfare and financial accountability are not treated as competing interests, but as requirements that must be satisfied simultaneously.
