Subverting the Public Service
Ten or so years after discarding the constitution that our leaders had sacrificed so much to have firmly entrenched, we went along and discarded the merit-based system of Public Service.
The fundamental objective of a merit-based public service is to insulate it from political interference and influence so that appointments and promotions are based on merit and on merit alone.
It should have come as no surprise that a constitution that did not derive its strength and legitimacy from the will of the people would sooner be subverted than be obeyed; and the institutions that derived their own power from it were worse affected, with the public service most adversely so.
The basic principles of the service were inherited at independence in a fully-fledged merit system as agreed to by our leaders during the constitutional conferences but this was discarded in favour of the patronage – spoils system.
The merit based system of public service was establish in Nigeria
“To ensure that the Public Service is completely free from political interference it is necessary that the machinery for first appointments, promotions and discipline should be kept entirely outside of politics and that the body which operates this machinery should be recognized as impartial and authoritative and should enjoy the confidence of the service itself and of the general public.
It is equally essential, if the members of the Public Service are to perform their duties efficiently, that they should enjoy security of tenure, that the material conditions of the service (the emoluments of officers, their housing, leave and other conditions of service including their pensions) should be safeguarded and that there should be machinery for making such improvements in conditions of service as may be necessary from time to time. These are basic necessities for the effective operation of the Public Service in any country”.
Not only did our leaders agree to establish the institution required to ensure political neutrality of the Public Service, but they, in addition, took practical steps to make the independence of such institution a reality. At the 1957/1958 Constitutional Conference they agreed that:
“Regulations regarding the Public Service Commission should be made by the Governor after consultation with the Commission. There should be constitutional provision setting out the scope of the regulations and the members of the Commission should be prevented from having an interest in, or otherwise benefiting from, government contracts…”
“…A member, whether full time or part-time, should be removable from office only on grounds of inability to perform or proven misconduct…”
“It should be a criminal offence to interfere or attempt to interfere with Public Service Commission or for a member of the Commission to compound or to be a party to such interference.”
Other additional steps taken included the issuance of a letter to every member of the House of Representatives or House of Assembly being considered for appointment as a minister, inviting his attention to a set of Code of Ethics for Ministers. In the list of dos and don’ts in the letter one of them specifically prohibited any Minister from using “his official influence to support the candidature of any person for admission to or promotion in the Civil Service”.
Also, a section of the Constitution restricted the power of the Legislature to make any law or pass any resolution which would have the effect of making alterations in the salary, allowance or other conditions of service of any public officer to his disadvantage.
Above all, the political leaders in the country both in government and opposition committed themselves in writing to uphold the political neutrality of the Public Service. In the statement, the leaders – Sir Ahmadu Bello, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Malam Aminu Kano and Professor Eyo Ita – reaffirmed:
“We fully support the principle that all Public Service questions, including appointments, promotions, transfers, postings, dismissals and other disciplinary matters should be kept completely free and independent of political control. We hope that the traditional principle of promotion according to qualification, experience, merit without regard to race will be maintained”.
Our leaders acted honourably and kept their promise. They acted strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the constitution in handling public service matters. The Constitution vested appointment, promotion, transfer, etc in one or the other Service Commissions. There were provisions allowing a head of Government to get involved in the appointment of some few specified office holders.
Accordingly Permanent Secretary, Ambassador, High Commissioner, Auditor General, the Inspector General of Police, the Clerk of the Legislature, Commissioners of Police were appointed in consultation between the relevant Service Commission and the Head of Government or the Senate President/Speaker of the House in the case of the Clerk.
The London Constitutional Conference “recognized that in view of the importance and dignity of the position of chief representative of a country overseas – Ambassadors and the Commissioners—it, from time to time be best to fill such posts not by career officers in the Public Service, but by distinguished citizens appointed for broad reasons of policy”. To the credit of our past leaders, they did not abuse that opportunity for between 1960 and 1966 they appointed only twelve non-career heads of missions out of over 100.
Subverting Remuneration of Certain Public Officers.
In an attempt to ensure that holders of certain public offices performed their duties without fear or favour to the political executive and members of the legislature, remuneration of such officers were fixed by law and insulated from the arbitrariness of politicians in both the executive and legislature. The independence and political neutrality of the officers are guaranteed by the constitution because of the sensitive nature of their work, and also because in the performance of their duties, they are not subject to direction or control by any other body or authority.
These bodies were the Public Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, the Electoral Commission, Justices of the superior courts of record, the Auditor-General and the Director of Public Prosecution.
The criteria for their inclusion in the constitution is that they are not subject to direction or control by any other body or authority in the performance of their duties, and that their decision are final and are not subject to review by any other body or authority.
Accordingly there had always been a provision in the Constitution prohibiting the alteration of remuneration and their conditions of service to their disadvantage during their continuance in office.
From 1954 when these Commissions were first established first as advisory bodies to the Governor-General and the Governors, that is before Independence, and then became fully independent of Government after 1st October, 1960, there has always been such provisions in the constitution.
In the 1960 Constitution the remuneration of the holders of such offices was provided for in Section 129, as follows:
i) There shall be paid to the holders of the offices to which this Section applies such salary and allowances may be prescribed by Parliament
ii) The salary and allowances payable to the holders of any office to which this section applies shall be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation
iii) The salary payable to the holder of any office to which this Section applies, and his term of office, other than allowances shall not be altered to his disadvantage after his appointment.
4) This Section applies to the Offices of Governor-General, Chief Justice of the Federation, Federal Justices, Chief Justices and other Judges of the High Court of Lagos, members of the Electoral Commission of the Federation, members of the Public Service Commission of the Federation, members of the Police Service Commission of the Federation and Auditor-General for the Federation.
In the 1979 Constitution the National Population Commission was added as one of such bodies. To me, it did not and still does not appear to merit inclusion in this category of public officers. In the first place it is not one of the extra-ministerial institution because its subject matter is always assigned to a member of the executive secondly the result of its work is subject to acceptance or rejection by the Executive.
From 1989 when RMAFC was established to date the members of such offices has increased beyond reason as shown in Annex I of this paper. The Commission also created a number of fringe benefits and, in the name of monetization awarded about 1500% of basic salaries to the beneficiary public officers. The good intention of our Founding Fathers has been perverted into a status symbol and is now applied to legitimize brazen looting of public funds. Such Offices now include the President, the Vice-President, Ministers, members of the National Assembly, Governor, Deputy Governor and members of State Houses of Assembly, and even politicians at the local government level. Now Virtually every elected or appointed politician including politician appointed on the governing body of a commission and an agency.
The intention was to protect the holders of such sensitive offices from the anticipated arbitrariness of the political class. It certainly does not make sense to extend it to include the same politicians from whom the protection is sought in the first place. As things stand now, from whom then are the holders of offices being protected?
The truth is that the whole exercise has been perverted and converted into an elitist and conspiratorial club anchored by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission. And since 2002 RMAFC has been reviewing the salaries of those Public Officers at least biennially, while the salaries of ordinary workers had not been reviewed for many years.
To be continued
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
