Dr Kanganja, Ndalamei deserve support

COMMENT - I have said it before, but there is a need to separate the civil service (state) from the political class (government). If that happens, all of a sudden a lot of things become possible - like paying civil servants in full and on time. Like distributing money directly from the state to local councils, without politicalisation or victimisation of opposition councils.

Dr Kanganja, Ndalamei deserve support
Written by Editor

‘In a nutshell, our performance in managing the resources entrusted to us by the public is poor and needs to be improved with a sense of seriousness and urgency.” These were the words of Secretary to the Cabinet Dr Joshua Kanganja. This is the spirit of criticism and self-criticism that is needed in our country. This seriousness, honesty and courage gives us a feeling of confidence that things can be improved. It reminds us of a saying by Lenin that attitude – that is to say, the seriousness of purpose – of any organisation is measured, basically, by the attitude it takes toward its own errors, its own weaknesses.

And in the same way, the seriousness of our public service should be measured by the attitude those who lead it take towards their own deficiencies. We say this because when weaknesses or errors are acknowledged or admitted, they stand a better chance of being corrected. It is very difficult to solve a problem which one is denying.

For this reason, we feel the positions taken by Dr Kanganja and Secretary to the Treasury Likolo Ndalamei are dignified and honest ones. This is the way things should be. There is no need to deny things that exist and pretend all is well when things are not well. It’s rare in this country that those in public service admit to weaknesses. Often, they only do so when it is to blame others and not themselves.

There are many questions that will need to be answered. For instance, Dr Kanganja says controlling officers who did not abide by provisions of the legal instruments such as the public finance Act and regulations were liable to specified punishment. If this is so, why haven’t we seen such officers punished? There are so many reports by the Auditor General showing officers not abiding by the provisions of the public finance Act but we don’t see them being punished. Why? Why should controlling officers fail to adhere to set guidelines and still be in employment? Is it because they are political appointees who can only be fired by the appointing authority – the President?

Dr Kanganja says the rampant abuse of public resources has been worsened by controlling officers ignoring internal audit reports. Why should controlling officers ignore internal audit reports and still be in employment? Is it because they are political appointees of the President? What action has Dr Kanganja taken to bring such controlling officers to book? Failing to punish controlling officers who ignore internal audit reports is a failure on the part of those whose job is to supervise such controlling officers. It is a failure on the part of the Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary to the Cabinet and indeed the President himself as the appointing authority.

Internal audits are part of our public service’s controls. Ignoring internal audit reports is not different from simply overriding the controls so that one can steal with impunity. Who doesn’t know that some of our controlling officers have been at the forefront of abusing, misapplying and the stealing of public funds? Today we have controlling officers who have served jail sentences or are still in jail and if they are not in jail, they are in court defending themselves for abusing or stealing public funds. But none of these cases arose as a result of the internal checks being carried out by internal auditors, or by the Auditor General or indeed as a result of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It is usually as a result of work triggered by the activities of ordinary citizens. It seems our public service system is incapable of self-correction because all the internal controls don’t seem to work. These are the questions Dr Kanganja and the leadership of the public service need to address and address with a very high sense of seriousness and urgency to safeguard public resources.

It would not be a lie to say that the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet has not served the public well in its management of the public service. Why? Is it because of failure on the part of the individuals who have occupied the office of Secretary to the Cabinet? Or is it because of inherent problems in the way the public service functions? Is it because although managed and supervised by the Secretary to the Cabinet, these controlling officers owe their loyalty and allegiance to the appointing authorities? And there seems to be nothing a Secretary to the Cabinet can do when such controlling officers fail to live up to the expected standards. We have also seen that some of these controlling officers do a lot of wrong things on behalf of the appointing authorities. Is this what keeps them in office even when they fail to meet the standards?

It will be very difficult to have a professional and honest public service if these questions are not addressed in an honest manner. Our public service is not as professional as we would like it to be. It is a highly politicised civil service. We have people who have moved from being ruling party cadres, officials to civil servants – to controlling officers, permanent secretaries. Is this the way things should be? Can such a practice produce a professional and honest public service? Campaign managers of the President are the ones who become controlling officers. Is it possible in this way to have a public service that is controlled and guided by the Secretary to the Cabinet? How can the Secretary to the Cabinet supervise or control controlling officers who are much closer to the President and politically more powerful and better connected than himself?

The same applies to our diplomatic staff and the abuse and stealing of public funds at our embassies run by political appointees of the President who are usually his relatives, friends and ruling party cadres. Is it possible to have a disciplined, professional and honest public service in this way?

Ours is a poor country. And this being the case, it means that to make this country prosperous, we will need a lot of effort, which will include among other things, the effort to practice strict economy and combat waste, that is, the policy of building up our country through diligence and frugality. Diligence and frugality should be practised in running all our public institutions. The principle of diligence and frugality should be observed in everything. We must particularly advocate diligence and frugality and pay special attention to economy. We should not indulge in wastefulness.

Thrift should be the guiding principle in our government expenditure. It should be made clear to all who work for the government or the state that corruption and waste are very great crimes. We say this because today, those who work for the government are stealing with impunity.

We have even a president who as custodian of the interests of the Zambian people was stealing from the people. Clearly, there is no one to trust. If a president can steal or abuse public resources, what more an ordinary government worker? If a president can engage in wastage, in misuse and misapplication of public funds, what more an ordinary government worker? If a president can manipulate things to benefit his friends, his relatives, what more an ordinary government worker?

The only solution to this, in these circumstances, is to strengthen the system of accountability, of internal controls and internal checks and of public oversight.

We should at no time allow anyone in government to place his personal interests first; they should always be made to subordinate themselves to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence, selfishness and corruption should be most contemptible, while selflessness and whole-hearted devotion to public duty should command respect.

Those in public service must always be ready at all times to stand for the truth, because truth is in the interest of the people; public servants must be ready at all times to correct their mistakes, because mistakes are against the interest of the people. They must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well-founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage wastage of public resources. Every statement and action of theirs must proceed from the interests of the people; it must be absolutely impermissible to violate these principles.

For these reasons, we feel Dr Kanganja and Ndalamei are on the right path and deserve support and encouragement. It is also clear that there is need to transform the relationship between State House and the public service. The appointment of controlling officers needs to move away from State House so that they can be more accountable to the leadership of the public service. Therefore, they should be appointed by the public service itself and serve on its terms, and not appointed by the President and serve on his terms.