We condemn the manner key political appointees of the federal government interfere and impose decisions on government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). At the last count, 8 of such incidents have been recorded in the last 3 years of this administration. Regrettably, the interference is without recourse to the laws establishing the institutions. Apart from infringing on the powers of the governing boards, it is also against corporate governance principles.
From one agency to the other, reports of ministers and other presidential aides pushing heads of federal departments and agencies around is ubiquitous. Not only does this brazen attitude contravene public service rules, it also whittles down the powers of the chief executives to effectively discharge their responsibilities.
During the colonial and early postcolonial era, public service was an efficient and effective career full of positive promises. It has a history of impartiality, loyalty, hard work, dedication, commitment and freedom.
However, all these expectations started to dwindle as a result of conflicts between political elites and public administrators. While it is the responsibility of political elites to formulate policies for the benefit of their constituents, it is the responsibility of the public administrators to ensure the implementation and realization of the policies. It is in the process of the formulation, implementation and realization of policies that conflicts set in. The result is that public service became characterised by excessive partisanship, corruption, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness.
For MDAs to operate effectively they must have some form of autonomy. Without it, the workforce may become the “land of the working dead,” roaming endlessly in zombie-like fashion, waiting to be told what to do next. Not an enjoyable workplace for employees or managers, by any stretch.
Granting MDAs autonomy does not mean working in isolation. It’s not doing whatever you like whenever you like. It’s not working without a net. In an autonomous organization, it is what gets done that matters, with less concern for how it gets done. The bottom-line benefit to both employees and organization is that workers who are free to make more choices are happier, more committed to their jobs, productive and less likely to leave.
Agreed, there could be issues of abuse and other infractions. But such issues should be handled by the Board in line with the enabling act. Where the need arises, the board should forward its findings and recommendations to the supervising minister for further consideration and necessary action.
Going by extant regulations, it is the duty of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) to advise the president on the next line of action to take based on the final report submitted.
It need not be stressed that those given office of responsibility in government must live above board, eschewing every conduct, private or public, that could tarnish the good image of the country.
Above all, government officials must reconcile with themselves that their major responsibility is to effectively and efficiently dedicate their time to the service of our fatherland.
