My Thoughts On System Failures In The Public Sector-The Case Of The Local Government Service

In my press statement to mark the birth of Progressive Public Servants for the Total Overhaul of the Public Sector (PPSTOPS), I stated that “I have learnt at first-hand how ironical our situation as a country is – autocratic institutions in a democratic country.” I came to this conclusion because individuals who are put in positions of trust rather than ensuring that systems put in place work, they rather prefer to weaken those systems to ensure that their selfish interest are served.

This situation has led to what I have termed as “One-man-showmanship” in many public sector institutions today. If my memory serves me right, I remember somewhere in 2010, the Chief Executive Officer of the Fair Wages and Salary Commission (FWSC) alluded to this fact during the job evaluation of public sector workers. In this write up, I wish to throw more light on this fact with specific reference to the Local Government Service, where I work.

Before I proceed, let me try giving an explanation to the term “One-man-showmanship”. This is a situation where individuals, especially those in positions of trust, take on roles and functions of almost every Department, Division or Unit in the system they are supposed to man.

They are usually able to achieve this by the connivance of one or two other officers in the system they operate whiles others languish and do virtually nothing. This has also sometimes been referred to as “Job left, chop left” the full meaning of which is that because people want to “chop” alone, they will do all the work alone. But I wish to state that there are many other reasons for this “one-man-showmanship” in the public sector and that it is not just because of “chop left”.

Some other reasons include inexperience, incompetent subordinates and self-aggrandizement. The “chop left” syndrome and the self-aggrandizement, as you can see, falls in the realm of selfish interest and in my opinion constitutes the majority of the reasons for “one-man-showmanship” in the public sector today. When people adopt this style, hardily do they listen to anyone apart from the one or two close confidantes.

This makes them autocratic and even advises that will make the institutions work better are sometimes ignored hence my prescription of “autocratic institutions in a democratic country”. And people who dare stand against this style of leadership will be called all sort of names, intimidated and victimised for no just cause.

As one of the public sector institutions, the Local Government Service is no exception. On the 28^th October, 2015, I was ambushed and hauled to a Disciplinary Committee by the Head of Service and this is the reason for this write up which is meant to expose the syndrome of one-man-showmanship in the public sector today.

Section 11 of the Local Government Service Act of 2003, Act 656 which talks about the committees of the Local Government Service Council and mandates the council to form Disciplinary Committees and rightly so because as per section 6(d) of the Local Government Service Act, Act 656 of 2003, and section 11(b) of the condition of service, the council is the appointing Authority of most of the staff of the service with the exception of a few which belong to what is called category ‘A’ and as per Article 297 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, the council is the only authority to dismiss such staff. At the committee sitting, I did not get the impression it was the council that mandated the formation of the Disciplinary Committee.

The letter instructing the Regional Co-ordinating Director to form this Committee was signed for the Head of Service. This was one of my objections to the committee and it also goes to buttress the point about one-man-showmanship which is the subject matter of this write up.

This opinion of usurpation of powers of the council by the Head of Service did not just occur to me at the committee sitting but has been a view I held for some time now after carefully reviewing most of the documents emanating from the service in the past two years.

The Local Government Service Act specifies the functions of the Council and the Head of Service in sections 6 and 15 respectively. As part of the functions of the Head of Service, section 15(d) states “The Head of Service shall initiate plans and programmes within the Service, for the consideration and approval of the Council, to activate and accelerate the local government decentralisation process in accordance with the Constitution, the Local Government Act, 1993, (Act 462) and any other enactment.” In my opinion based on what I have read this far in the past two years, these provisions are not being adhered to and I suspect it is for the reason of self-aggrandizement because ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse as my learned friends of the bar will always say. Here are some few examples to illustrate this point further.

First of all, section 6(c) of Act 656 states “The Council SHALL have general management and control of the Service and SHALL recommend to the Minister a scheme of service prescribing the terms and conditions of service as well as the remuneration of the employees of the Service;” Though in my opinion this provision is automatically amended with the coming into force of the Labour Act of 2003, Act 651 with specific reference to section 176 (I stand to be corrected though), the scheme of Service was unilateral changed in 2014 and when I complained, I am rather being haunted like a criminal with all sort of intimidatory tactics. I came to this conclusion because reading through the revised scheme of service, there is no indication of any action by the council or the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) as required by section 6(c) of Act 656. Again, the Head of Service signed off the document which in my opinion lies with the Minister of MLGRD to do.

Secondly, in September 2013 a Human Resource Operational Manual (HROM) was developed for the service and later printed and distributed to all MMDAs in the country. Apart from the same signing off of the document by the Head of Service which I think should have been signed by the council chairman in accordance with the functions of the council, the Head of Service has also been given powers that completely contravene section 6(d) of the Local Government Service Act, Act 656 of 2003, section 11(b) of the condition of service and above all Article 297(a) of the 1992 Republican Constitution. In the HROM, the Head of Service has been given the powers to dismiss or terminate the appointment of staff in section 6.6.3(a)(i) and (iii) as stated below:

6.6.3(a) i. 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.

6.6.3(a) iii. The Head of Service may at any time and for sufficient reason terminate the appointment of any employee on trial or probation. These provisions in the HROM for me, makes it technically deficient and it cannot stand the test of time.

The Code of Conduct is not spared of this. In that document on page 5, it states and I quote “The above mandate, objectives and strategic position of the Local Government Service has compelled the Secretariat of the Local Government Service to develop a Code of Conduct as an “instructive” tool to outline the specific values, principles, standards, and rules of professional behavior that guide the decisions, procedures and systems of the organization.” With all due respect, I think that should have read “…has compelled the council…to develop” so that it will be in line with section 6(d) of the Local Government Service Act which states that “The Council SHALL have general management and control of the Service and SHALL develop policy guidelines for handling matters relating to recruitment, training, promotion, remuneration, discipline, arbitration and petition within the Service;”. The functions of the secretariat are also spelt out in section 15.

The conditions of Service for the Local Government Service stipulates in section 91 and 93 that the approving authority for study leave with/without pay is the Metropolitan, Municipal, District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) for the MMDAs. Today in the service, one still has to apply to the Head of Service to be granted this right. All this at the backdrop of the fact that section 4(1) of the Local Government Service Act of 2003, Act 462 states that “A District Assembly shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name.”

In my opinion, all these documents I have mentioned here and some others not mentioned here based on these flaws cannot stand the test of time and will need to be reviewed. Let me ask this question. Can’t I term this as “Willfully causing financial lose to the state?”

To conclude, I will like to reiterate the point that if nothing is done to overhaul the public sector as it is today, we will continue to treat the symptoms of the problems of our society today to no avail. In my press conference of 14^th October, 2015, I was reported as demanding for the removal of the Head of Service for the Local Government Service from office for incompetence and people questioned the rationale for such a call. And when he was asked one reporter, he said I have failed to prove that he is incompetent. I hope I have been able to satisfy the curiosity of people with this few examples.

To those who wonder what happened at the Disciplinary Committee meeting which I was hauled to; thanks to the open mindedness of the Chairman and his members, they saw reason with my objections and suspended sitting indefinitely. For me, I think it is a done deal but if the Head of Service still thinks otherwise, I await his next line of action. But I am clear in my mind that I will not sit by for any illegal processes to be used to victimise me unjustly.

I end here but I shall surely be back.
Charles Ayuune Akurugu
[email protected]