“Corporate” Governance In The Local Government Service

In fulfilment of section 37(1) of the Local Government Act, Act 462 of 1993, parliament in 2003 enacted Act 656 to give birth to the “youngest” Public Service of Ghana today, in accordance with paragraph (d), clause (1) of Article 190 of the 1992 constitution – the Local Government Service. The membership of the Service as contained in Act 656 comprises persons holding NON-ELECTED public office in Regional Coordinating Councils, District Assemblies, Sub-Metropolitan District Councils, Urban, Zonal, town and Area Councils, staff of the Secretariat of the Service and such other persons as maybe employed for the Service. The object of the Service as contained in section 3 of the Act “is to secure the effective administration and management of local government in the country”.

In promulgating Act 656, a certain “corporate” governance structure was envisaged for the Service. On top of that structure is the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) which is related to the service through the Local Government Service Council (i.e. the governing board) in matters of policy and regulations as contained section 12 and 32 and implied in section 6(a), (c), (I) and such other relevant provisions of the Act. Below the Minister of MLGRD is the governing board (in the real corporate world this can be equated to the Board of Directors) called the Local Government Service Council (LGSC) which is fifteen (15) in membership and appointed by the President in consultation with the Council of State.

The LGSC according to Act 656 “shall have general management and control of the Service”. The rest of the functions are contained in section 6 of Act 656 of 2003. Directly below the LGSC is the Local Government Service Secretariat (LGSS) head by a Head of Service (can be likened to CEO in the corporate world) appointed by the President in accordance with article 195 (Read Section 13(2), 15(1) and 15(2)). Then follows the Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs) headed by Regional Ministers, Metropolitan, Municipal, District Assemblies (MMDAs) headed by Chief Executives, Sub-Metropolitan District Councils, Urban, Zonal, and town Area Councils headed by Chairmen in that order.

As a practitioner and student of local governance, I have observed and followed with keen interest developments in the service and it leaves much to be desired. The evidence on the ground suggest a complete disregard for this “corporate” structure envisaged by the Act establishing the service and a tendency towards one-man-showmanship and self-aggrandisement leading to, in my opinion, severe lapses in some documents emanating from the service. Most of these lapses do not only worry but appear to breach codes of the service and the law as I know it. I have in previous write-ups touched on some of them and brought some of them to the attention of those who matter and I will continue to do so as I have elected to do until some sanity is brought to bear.

To start with, I will revisit a point made in an earlier write-up and bring a different perspective to it. As per the functions of the LGSC, section 6(a) stipulates that “the council shall recommend to the Minister matters of policy relating to the management of the Service.” Reading this with section 32 of Act 656, it is clear that things like code of conduct, human resource operations manuals, conditions of service, scheme of service, staffing norms etc only emanate from the council but the final authority in developing such documents is the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development. And if such documents should bear a “Foreword” and signature at all, it should be that of the Minister. The Head of Service does not come in at all.

The Head of Service is a member of the Local Government Service (LGS) and is bound by the code of conduct for Public Servants and that for the LGS. This is buttressed by the code of conduct for the LGS (itself problematic) in the following sentence under the heading “Scope and Purpose”: “The Code applies to the governing body of the Local Government Service Council, and all persons holding non-elected public offices..., all staff of the Secretariat of the Service...” Note the problem with this statement though not the substance of this point – “governing board of the Local Government Service Council.”The point is all the recent documents emanating from the service bear a foreword from the Head of Service and his name and signature. The “Forewords” on all these documents has nothing to show the involvement of the Council or the Minister.

Apart from the clear violations and disregard for the “corporate” governance structure indicated above, there is also a clear violation of the code of Conduct for Public Servants and the LGS. I will use that of the LGS even though I have serious problems with it. One of the principles which public servants, as defined under chapter fourteen of the 1992 constitution, are to be guided by is ANONYMITY and the code of conduct for LGS captures it under canon (1). The statement of principle for ANONYMITY in this code states: “Officers and staff of Local Government Service shall serve the State with neutrality and ANONYMITY in the national and local government processes.” The code goes further in what is called ANONYMITY TEST to state: “In the discharge of your duties, do you draw attention to your contribution by styling your designations in written or oral communications beyond your official capacity for discharging the said duty; and would it appear to any reasonable mind that you wish to be acknowledged as having been the author of the said work or the brain behind the achievement of outcomes?” From the foregoing, there is no answer to this test than an emphatic YES if applied to the instances stated above. It is for this anonymity that the Conditions of Service developed way back in 2007 had no signature or Foreword. It is for this same anonymity that the brains behind the Scheme of Service of 2010 did not put their names and titles on them. Read the preamble of the conditions of service for LGS and it tells you the difference.

Another area of this disregard for the “corporate” governance structure of the LGS which is quite troubling and has a bearing on the constitution is in the area of appointments, disciplinary processes and related matters. Article 297 (a) of the 1992 constitution states: “In this Constitution and in any other law, the power to appoint a person to hold or to act in an office in the public service shall include the power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in any such office and to remove the persons from office”. In the Service, posts are divided into six (6) categories – A to F. The appointing authority for category “A” post is the President and category “B” to ”F” is the Local Government Service Council (LGSC). So if you look at the appointment letter of any Local Government Service employee, the opening paragraph reads “I have the honour to inform you that the Local Government Service Council has decided to offer you appointment in the Local Government Service as ... in the ... Class subject to medical fitness and other checks, with effect from ...” and the Head of Service signs the letter. In conformity with Article 297(a) as stated above, Act 656 in section 11(3c) provides for the council to form Disciplinary Committees in consultation with the relevant RCCs and MMDAs.

Despite all these clear provisions of the law, what is observed on the ground is contrary to these provisions. Take for instance, the Human Resource Operational Manual (HROM) developed in 2013 and you will see clear provisions in that manual that stand contrary to the law as stated above. Section 2.6.5 (iii) of the HROM states: “The HEAD OF SERVICE SHALL MAKE APPOINTMENTS to positions required for effective and efficient management of the Service and when necessary in consultation with the Council and the Public Services Commission, setting out the terms and conditions of employment”. This cannot be. It is not in the place of the Head of Service to be making appointments. Appointments are in the remit of the LGSC. Functions of the Head of Service are clearly stipulated in section 15 and by extension section 14 of Act 656 where the functions of the secretariat are stated.

Again, section 6.6.3 (a)(i) of the same HROM states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.5, the Head of Service may terminate the appointment of any employee, where she/he is satisfied that on the basis of results of investigation or inquiry, it is in the interest of the Service to do so.” And 6.6.3 (a)(iii) Says: “The Head of Service may at any time and for sufficient reason terminate the appointment of any employee on trial or probation.”. It is my considered opinion that these provisions are contrary to the Provisions of Article 297(a) of the constitution. It is just not for anything that council is the appointing authority and hence must be the once to discipline and if necessary terminate appointments. It is meant, I believe, to check bullying and arbitrariness which is widespread in the public services and is part of the check and balances in the system. These provisions of the HROM which are contrary to the law have not only been merely put on paper but have actually been put to practise in several instances and must stop.

The logical question that flows from all the above is if all these things said above is true, why is the council or Minister doing nothing about them. With my experience in the public services, it is no wonder to me. It is all about the “Strongman” phenomenon which President Barack Obama so eloquently talked about in 2009 when he addressed our parliament. In my recent activism to get things changed for the better, I have spoken to many and many who matter in the service have spoken to me. You can just feel the sense of powerlessness in their voices yet the statutes tells them they have the power. The grapevine hasn’t been quiet either. The rumour mill has been rife with stories of how people tried to assert their authority and lost their positions or got themselves reassigned for others to have their way. The aura that was coincidentally bestowed on people was misapplied; had it been properly applied, the achievement would have been great.

Again, it is also about the kind of constitution and systems we have adopted for ourselves which many have talked about. Why would the President appoint all the members of the council and at the same time appoint the Head of Service? In the real corporate world, the Board of Directors appoints the CEO so that they can have control over him. In this case, we expect the Head of Service to be under the control of the LGSC yet they don’t have the power to discipline as contained in 297(a). In the words of Lord Acton, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We must begin to look for time tested systems that will provide true checks and balances. It is necessary for a total system overhaul if we are serious about making the needed progress. I rest my case here for today but I shall surely be back.

Charles A. Akurugu
[email protected]