Cherry-picking the public service rule

BY JOHNSON ETAH

The Nigerian civil service was once regarded as one of the largest and most disorganised work institutions in the world, and as a result, it has been dubbed an “evil service” and its employees “evil servants”. This is due to the fact that most people who patronised the system have been dissatisfied with the results. This has made the service structure weaker overall and prevented it from providing good quality, effective and efficient services to the patrons.

This scenario made the previous administration of President Muhammadu Buhari through the office of the head of civil service of the federation embark on a programme to reform the service and make it efficient and customer-focused. Consequently, the public service rule was revised and approved by the national executive council on September 27, 2021. For some strange reason, the document was not released by the office of the head of service until July 27, 2023.

The first section of interest was PSR section 020908 on the tenure of directors in ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). Compliance has so far been crooked because of officers that are bigger than the laws of the land. The content of PSR is succinct and should not require further circulars to save the cost of paper and other resources employed in producing and distributing circulars. Circulars should only explain grey areas of a subject that is founded on contents not immediately understandable to the Public or entirely new subjects.

However, a series of circulars have been sent to MDAs to ensure compliance by all affected public officers and yet there are violations because there are no stated sanctions for a violation even though the same PSR contains sanctions for such misconduct. The PSR section 020908 did not take cognizance of directors that are 8 years and above as directors but less than 60 years of age. The retirement age of 60 years should take precedence in such cases and the directors can be transferred to other assignments that are not necessarily departmental administration in nature or paid off the service with stipulated payment for each remaining year of the career before retirement.

The other section of the PSR which officers have violated overtime is the PSR section 120243 on ‘Three-Months Pre-retirement Leave’ which states as follows: “Officers are required to give three months notice to retire from service before the effective date of retirement. At the commencement of three months, officers should proceed immediately on the mandatory one-month pre-retirement workshop/seminars. For the remaining two months retiring officers are expected to take necessary measures to put their records straight so as to facilitate the speedy processing of their retirement benefits.”

This is also a very clear section of the PSR and going by the definition of leave in the PSR 120101; Leave is the authorized absence of an officer from duty for specific period as provided for in this chapter. i.e. chapter 12 of the PSR.

By extension, the three months pre-retirement leave should be an authorised absence of a retiring officer from duty for three months before finally departing the service. During the pre-retirement leave period, the officer should only guide his/her replacement not to make avoidable mistakes. The retiring officer should stop signing official documents at the commencement of the pre-retirement leave and should effect the necessary change in signatories during the first two weeks of the three months leave. It is a flagrant violation of the public service rule for retiring officers to refuse to proceed immediately on a mandatory three months leave before they finally depart from service.

If an officer is on a tenured appointment that coincides with his/her retirement from service, retirement should take precedence. Therefore if an officer’s tenure ends at the same time as the retirement date or if the tenure ends before the retirement date, the officer should comply with the requirements of the three months pre-retirement leave otherwise he/she stands in violation of the PSR. All violations such as the retiring officers signing official documents should attract penalties set by the PSR. In the case of documents involving financial transactions, such officers should face the Independent Corrupt Practices and related offences Commission (ICPC).

Different MDAs have in the past operated this section of the PSR using their discretion as if compliance is optional or prone to subjective interpretation. Compliance with section 120243 of the PSR is mandatory for all retiring officers. The period is not a working leave. Departmental, agency or ministry affairs should be transferred to the next most senior officer. This is to avoid dubious financial transactions as officers exit the system.

As much as the HoS would want full compliance with the new PSR, it should develop mechanisms for sanctioning earring officers because the tendency to cherry-pick the PSR is very high among Civil Servants and that would reverse the system to business-as-usual and all the resources spent on the reformation exercise would be in vain. The HoS in their circular on compliance with the PSR should remind officers of the penalty for default. Disobedient officers should be penalised by the HoS to demonstrate seriousness in the implementation of a service-wide reform for the benefit of Nigerians. A wise sage once said: “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.”

Johnson Etah heads the Civil Society for Good Governance and Citizenship Dividends