By Secrets Reporters
Officers of the University of Abuja received ₦2,113,000 above approved rates for official travel allowances in 2020, raising questions about how the institution determined the amounts paid to staff on duty tours. The payments exceeded the applicable per-diem rates prescribed under Paragraph 1411(i) of the Financial Regulations 2009, which sets out duty tour allowance rates according to officers’ grade levels. The excess payment has been identified as a potential loss and diversion of government funds, placing the University’s staff allowance arrangements under scrutiny.
The University’s management said the allowances were approved by the Governing Council, relying on the council’s powers under the University of Abuja Act. “The Governing Council, as empowered by the University of Abuja Act, considered and approved the allowance for various categories of staff in conjunction with the circular from the Salaries and Wages Commission,” management stated. The explanation indicates that the University relied on an internal approval and a circular from the Salaries and Wages Commission in determining the allowances payable to different staff categories.
Futhermore, the central question is whether the rates approved by the Governing Council were consistent with the applicable financial regulations governing duty tour allowances. An institutional approval does not, on its own, establish that payments above prescribed rates complied with the relevant rules. Duty Tour Allowances are intended to cover eligible expenses incurred by officers traveling on official assignments. The applicable rates under Paragraph 1411(i) of the Financial Regulations 2009 are linked to officers’ grade levels.
The ₦2,113,000 excess recorded for 2020 raises concerns about how the University calculated the allowances and whether the payments were checked against the prescribed rates before disbursement. The issue also places attention on the relationship between the University’s internal decisions and the financial rules governing public expenditure.
The identified risks include loss of government funds and diversion of government funds. The key concern is whether the additional amounts paid to officers were properly authorised under the applicable regulations and supported by the relevant records. The University’s defence rests on the Governing Council’s approval of the allowance arrangements. However, the difference between the amounts paid and the prescribed rates remains the central issue requiring clarification.
The relevant records would need to establish the rates applied to each category of staff, the circular relied upon by management and the basis for approving payments above the amounts prescribed under the Financial Regulations.
The ₦2.1 million excess highlights the importance of ensuring that official travel allowances are calculated in accordance with the applicable rules and that internal approvals are consistent with the requirements governing public funds.
