The Federal Civil Service Reforms

There are two significant reforms going on in the country-Sanusi Lamido’s Tsunami in the banking sector and the federal civil service reforms. Both have attracted massive media and public attention, with the banking crisis clearly enjoying more “air and talk time”. I have already made my views about the banking reforms clear in this column-by and large, I believe Sanusi Lamido’s actions are required to stop the complete descent into an unprofessional, unethical and unsound banking sector and an inevitable massive industry collapse down the line, if nothing drastic is done now. I suspect there may be legal, procedural and constitutional questions about the process adopted by the CBN governor, (and that is why the Courts exist), but in any financial sector, anywhere in the world, the actions alleged against the banks and bankers are likely to attract similar, or worse sanctions from regulators.
But I have till date not commented on the federal public service reforms being pursued by the (relatively) new head of Service of the federation, Stephen Orosanye. In my view, Orosanye’s reforms are at least as important, as the one in the banking sector. The need to improve capacity in the civil services across the nation and in Abuja is imperative if Nigeria is to achieve its Vision 2020 objectives. In many countries of the world that have achieved rapid development-Japan, Singapore, China, India, Honk Kong etc, the quality of policy advice and implementation support offered by the civil service has been a critical success factor. Since NEEDS was launched under the Obasanjo regime, the imperative to reform the public service as a crucial element of economic reform and development was quickly reduced to only two issues (which not surprisingly were financially beneficial)-monetization and sale of government houses.
The fundamental problems of the public sector-weak capacity, an aging service, low morale, lack of IT skills, limited opportunities for career progression etc- were not addressed, until now. I can say right away that I strongly support the policies introduced by the federal public service commission and the Head of Service. Incidentally as the Presidential spokesman, Segun Adeniyi pointed out, while opponents of the banking reforms being implemented by Sanusi Lamido accuse him of a “Northern Agenda” of wanting to take over the ownership of Southern banks, opponents of the public service reforms accuse Steve Orosanye of a “Southern Agenda” of seeking to wipe out the Northern leadership of the civil service. I wonder what the poor, illiterate and unemployed youths in Kano, Bauchi, Kebbi and Maiduguri have benefitted from these civil servants who have suddenly realised that their job in the service is to protect Northern interests, the same way I wonder whether the Southern bankers shared any of their massive wealth with the poor people in their villages.
The new measures which require both permanent secretaries and directors in the federal service to spend a maximum of eight years in office, subject to satisfactory performance; that compels civil servants to resign before taking up tenured service; and that requires senior civil servants to be computer-literate are commendable initiatives. They will re-invigorate the service, revive morale in middle and upper-middle level career officers who should now see a future for themselves in the service and should help create a better-motivated leadership for the service. It also looks to me like the first tentative steps towards a more professional and efficient federal public service. For me, the real surprise is why anyone would oppose such a policy! How can a system in which assistant and deputy directors retire before their directors and permanent secretaries be sustainable? How can that motivate the service? What is the incentive for such officers knowing that irrespective of their competence or contributions they are unlikely to rise to the pinnacle of their career to give of their best, or to avoid corruption?
Meanwhile many of these “permanent” permanent secretaries and directors have short-circuited the system by coming in at the top either through their state civil services or some extra-ministerial agencies. And many sustain their unduly prolonged tenures through false age declarations and doctored service records. It is a sign of the impunity and audacity that has taken over in our nation that such people are ready to bring down the service rather than accept this sensible policy change. The argument that if an officer having served eight years as a director or permanent secretary is still below sixty years old, and has not served thirty-five years in service according to existing guidelines is neither hear nor there. That guideline provides a mandatory retirement date, a maximum rather than a minimum! If an officer has served as CEO (which in effect is what Permanent Secretaries are) or Executive Director (Directors) for eight years in the private sector (banks, multinationals etc), will it be anomalous to ask him to retire, even if he hasn’t reached the mandatory retirement age?
But these actions should only be the beginning of institution-building (actually re-building) in the federal service, and the states should also take a cue. We need better human capital management practices, process and systems re-engineering, enhanced public service remunerations, training, clear service standards and deliverables and other initiatives to enhance the quality and efficiency of our public services. We also need a system for weeding out unproductive civil servants and either encouraging them to take early retirement through incentives, or retraining them and creatively re-allocating them to other areas (such as agriculture, education or public works) where a massive national need exists.
I interpret the two bold reforms embarked upon by the federal government as tentative signs of revived political will. I hope the new mood can be carried to implementation of the electric power sector reform act, the mines and minerals act and into crafting a sound policy for managing the education sector.