The Military Pensions Board (MPB) has assured military veterans that complaints over recent pension adjustments will undergo a detailed review of official records to address alleged disparities in revised payments and arrears.
The Chairman of the MPB, Air Vice Marshal Mikail Abdulraheem, gave the assurance during a consultative meeting with veterans in Abuja, explaining that pension calculations were based on approved pension-specific salary structures provided by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission (NSIWC).
The meeting followed concerns raised by members of the Coalition for Military Veterans Welfare, who questioned why recent pension adjustments did not appear to correspond with the 30 to 80 per cent salary increases approved for serving military personnel.
READ ALSO: Military Pensions Board Meets Veterans Over New Pension Rates
The veterans sought clarification on the formula used to determine revised pensions, particularly in cases where some retirees believed the increases they received were lower than expected.
Abdulraheem explained that the salary structure for serving personnel differed from the one used to calculate pensions and gratuities, stressing that the MPB did not independently determine the applicable rates.
He noted that the revised pension structure followed the review of the Consolidated Armed Forces Salary Structure, which came into effect on September 1, 2026, with the NSIWC issuing a separate circular for pension administration.
“The National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission develops the applicable salary structure and issues the relevant circulars. The board then uses that structure to compute pensions and gratuities,” he said.
The MPB chairman maintained that the government-approved adjustments had been reflected in the revised pension structure, adding that individual entitlements could only be verified by examining the relevant pension records and applicable documents.
Some veterans, including retired Master Warrant Officer Duru Augustine, challenged the figures used to determine the new payments, arguing that certain calculations based on total emoluments appeared inconsistent with the adjustments received by some retirees.
Abdulraheem, however, clarified that pension computations must be based on pensionable emoluments and the approved pension structure rather than total annual earnings.
He further explained that under the pension framework, personnel were entitled to 40 per cent of their final emolument after 10 years of service, with an additional two per cent for every extra year of service until the maximum of 90 per cent was attained after 35 years.
Another veteran, Major Jay Onje (rtd.), questioned why the percentage increases announced by the government did not appear to be reflected in the revised pension payments received by retirees.
Onje urged the board to clarify whether the increases were applied directly to previous pension payments or calculated using another formula.
In response, Abdulraheem disclosed that the board had invited the NSIWC to provide further clarification on the applicable rates and computation process.
He explained that the initiative was intended to help veterans understand the basis of the calculations and ensure that any genuine discrepancies were properly addressed.
“We want everyone to see the applicable documents and understand the computation rather than rely on assumptions,” Abdulraheem said.
He urged retirees with complaints to submit their pension records and supporting documents for verification, assuring them that the board remained committed to resolving legitimate concerns through a transparent process.
The veterans’ concerns were also outlined in a letter submitted by the Coalition for Military Veterans Welfare, which sought clarification on alleged differences in arrears paid to warrant officers and master warrant officers, as well as pension benefits for medically boarded personnel.
The MPB chairman stressed that the complaints required a careful review of individual records before conclusions could be reached, adding that accurate documentation remained essential to resolving pension-related issues.
The meeting ended without a final determination on the disputed figures, as the board and veterans agreed that the complaints would undergo further verification against official pension circulars and individual pension files.
