Maravi

Permanent secretaries

Permanent secretaries
Written by Editor

The revelation by Auditor General Anna Chifungula that several permanent secretaries have complained to her over threats by some ministers who demand for imprest when visiting their constituencies just goes to show how far public funds are being misused and abused.

There is no minister or deputy minister who doesn’t know that visits to their constituencies are not provided for in the votes to their ministries. They all know that it is against the financial regulations for a minister to get imprest from his or her ministry for constituency work. If they need money for such a thing, they should go to the National Assembly and ask the Speaker to provide it or go to their political parties.

While we appreciate the need for our ministers to be in touch with their constituents and to attend funerals in their constituencies, this should not be financed by their ministries because the law does not provide for it.

And all permanent secretaries know that it is illegal for them to release money to a minister to visit his constituency. But they have been doing it. Why? Is it out of fear? Partly yes. But there is an element also of corruption on the part of permanent secretaries themselves.

All our permanent secretaries are political appointees of the president on short contracts of three years or so. And they can be dismissed any time. Their jobs are very insecure. Some of them simply hire themselves out to the politicians and they would do anything to please them. In this way, they think they win favours and the support of the politicians. Others are simply ruling party cadres who will not say no to the political authorities.

While we admit that political victimisation has long been a clear and present danger in the public service, we feel there is need for permanent secretaries not to be pliable in their dealings with government ministers who try to muzzle them into breaching regulations.

It cannot be denied that most public servants operate with that fear of being politically victimised. This is unfortunate. We daily see this enormous amount of fear in the public servants we deal with in the course of our business as journalists. But who doesn’t have pressures in doing their jobs? Everywhere one goes, there are pressures. So this shouldn’t be an excuse for permanent secretaries to be doing wrong things. They deserve to be punished together with the ministers they have been abusing or misusing government funds with.

We think permanent secretaries should not be insulated from blame if things go wrong with their ministries. If a permanent secretary believes that a minister’s directive is wrong, unlawful, is political or has some corrupt intent, then that permanent secretary should take steps to have the matter addressed.

A permanent secretary must be able to recognise when something is not right and not put his or her job at such a premium that they are not taking a risk. Permanent secretaries must be able to tell ministers the truth. But some are not as forthright as they ought to be; they are not as curious as they ought to be and their ears are not as close to the ground as they ought to be.

Many civil servants are not inclined to risk speaking out. Most people in the public service are risk-averse. It is a problem as they don’t want to risk their positions.

However, as the nation witnessed over the Dora Siliya tribunal, not all civil servants have a phobia of ministerial authority. Some of them stand their ground when ministers want them to do wrong things, when ministers insist that they do things that they feel were highly irregular.

However, we acknowledge that this kind of valour results in conflict. We saw this in the Siliya tribunal where the minister was at loggerheads with the permanent secretary for not co-operating in a deal that was highly questionable. But any minister who recognises that the permanent secretary is compelled, by his letter of appointment, to go the route of putting his objection to the minister’s instruction in writing to the Secretary to the Treasury in the Ministry of Finance, the Auditor General and the Secretary to the Cabinet, usually backs off. The smart minister usually backs off. There are some things that should not be done and people must know the difference. If the minister respected the permanent secretary, then he will leave it.

We think the time has come for a review of the role of the permanent secretary. We say this because this office doesn’t seem to have been functioning properly as can be evidenced by the increasing corruption and other abuses in government ministries. The control function of permanent secretaries seems to have collapsed.

As a result, government business is not being conducted in an efficient, effective and orderly manner. And public resources are being wasted, misused, abused and stolen with impunity. Several government projects have come to public attention because of procedural breaches and alleged corruption. There is a notion that in some cases, there is laxity and acquiescence on the part of public officials.

Sometimes the corruption takes place because there are thieves in the system. The permanent secretary could well have put systems in place to detect weaknesses and through no fault of his or her own, that system does not reveal any. However, that does not mean that actions are not taking place that are breaching the various regulations. Clearly, the scope of the permanent secretary needs to be defined.

More accountable officers need to be introduced into the public service. Currently, permanent secretaries are burdened with many departments and other agencies under their purview. People are going before the Public Accounts Committee for things they don’t know about. We need to broaden the scope of persons with accounting officer responsibility. The fact of the matter is, as accounting officer, the buck stops with the permanent secretary as to how government money is expended.

We are not saying that permanent secretaries should be fighting with their ministers, should be defiant but they should take it to a superior authority. Only a fool will preside over his own liquidation.

Our system as it stands now, the minister heads policy formulation, the permanent secretary is the permanent chief executive of the ministry.

It may also be wise to review the security of tenure of the job of permanent secretary. There is need for these controlling officers to be protected under the Constitution if they are to do their jobs with sufficient honour and integrity. In this way, we will be able to make the permanent secretary a guiding and restraining hand to the minister of government.

Permanent secretaries and other civil servants need to be forthright. There is need for confidence building in the public sector.

A permanent secretary who is doing his or her work shouldn’t just be placid and just go along. They must have spine and must keep their ears to the ground.

Labels: CORRUPTION, PERMANENT SECRETARIES

posted by MrK @ 4:48 PM