Reforming Nigeria’s public service

As the engine room of a functional government, the Nigerian civil service deserves the recent focus it attracted from stakeholders, who were unanimous in their advocacy for a meaningful reform. When a country’s public service has become dysfunctional due to inefficiency, bureaucracy, civil service red-tapism, multi-layered corruption structures, bribery, and extortion, the consequences for the country and its citizens can be very grave and disastrous. Despite the rhetoric over the years about purging and reforming Nigeria’s public service, nothing concrete has been done to bring about these reforms. This has brought monumental retrogression to the country.

In the light of this, some prominent Nigerian stakeholders, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo, recently met to advocate the need to reform Nigeria’s public service. They stressed that a sustainable and improved public service is urgently needed to achieve the much-vaunted sustainable integral development of the country. The stakeholders, who gathered at the Aig-Imoukhuede Foundation workshop held in Abuja, highlighted roles individuals across the country—especially political office holders, civil servants, lawmakers, and technocrats—can play in positioning the country at the forefront of authentic development.

Examining why a series of previous public service reforms in Nigeria failed or become counterproductive, the stakeholders emphasised the need to recognise the importance of technocrats in the public service, highlighting their roles in driving reforms and ensuring effective and efficient governance. Speaking at the occasion, Obasanjo traced the problems afflicting Nigeria’s public service and the factors impeding the successful implementation of reforms. These included, among other things, a lack of continuity and inadequate training for public officials. “Continuity of personnel is crucial. Reform is a lifelong process, a journey, not a destination,” he stated.

According to Obasanjo, “there are five principal elements in reform. The best thing for any reform will be the initiator, the owner, the executor, the driver, and the sustainer. If possible, the same personalities should fill these roles. If you can get that, you are lucky.” In her remarks, the Head of Service of the Federation, Folasade Yemi Esan, stated that since Nigeria’s Fourth Republic democratisation, there have been at least 48 documented reforms aimed at improving sectoral services and performance. She emphasised that these reforms have spanned the restructuring of the public service, fiscal governance, decentralisation, enhancing accountability, and legal and corporate regulation frameworks. According to Esan, poor funding, inadequate budgetary provisions, lack of skilled manpower, and poor communication during the planning and implementation stages have continued to impede the success of reforms in the country.

The stakeholders are right on point. The country’s public service is overdue for thorough reform to yield dividends. At the moment, the public service has become overly bureaucratic, with complex and time-consuming processes that hinder efficiency and responsiveness. This has resulted in delays in service delivery and frustration for citizens, perpetuating corruption, inefficiency, and unaccountability. Consequently, poor quality services have broader negative impacts in areas such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and the economy.

Unreformed public service has led to poor infrastructure, unreliable utilities, and cumbersome regulatory environments which deter businesses and investors. For instance, many multinationals that were previously doing business in Nigeria have fled the country, and many potential foreign investors are too scared to invest. Unreformed public service systems fail to meet the evolving needs of the population, reduce the morale of public servants, and lead to disparities in access to and quality of services among different regions and social groups. This exacerbates social inequalities and hinders inclusive development. In short, unreformed public services struggle to address contemporary challenges such as digital transformation, climate change, and globalisation, leaving the country ill-prepared to cope with future demands and crises.

However, it must be noted that public service reforms are not lacking in Nigeria. Since Nigeria’s independence in 1960, many of such reforms have been initiated. For example, in 1970, General Yakubu Gowon’s government set up the Udoji Commission to, among others, harmonise the structure and organisation of the public service in Nigeria. In 1974, the Udoji Commission recommended a result-oriented and unified structure of public service for the entire country. In 1975, General Murtala Muhammed inaugurated the Public Service Commission (Disciplinary Proceedings) and massively purged the civil service of those deemed unfit.

In 1988, General Ibrahim Babangida initiated his own reforms. He constituted the Philips Civil Service Review Panel which, according to the government, aimed at streamlining the public service along the lines of the presidential system of government. Under Sani Abacha’s dictatorial military junta, the Allison Ayida Panel on Civil Service Reforms undertook a reform of the public service. In fact, the reforms focused on addressing the root causes of inefficiency and lack of devotion to duty within the service. From the inception of the Obasanjo government in May 1999 until its exit in May 2007, numerous public civil reforms were initiated, leading to the establishment of the Bureau for Public Service Reform (BPSR) to, among other things, streamline and set minimum standards in terms of staff strength and remuneration for the public service.

Unfortunately, the recommendations of these reforms initiated by successive Nigerian governments failed to meet their marks or were not implemented due to politicisation, changes in government, differing government styles, and a lack of political will. Consequently, no single reform policy had the chance to make a significant impact before a new policy direction from another government took over.

This rigmarole has gone on for about 54 years. The present government of President Bola Tinubu should actively implement the various recommendations presented to successive Nigerian governments regarding the reform of the country’s public service. It is sad that, to date, the Oronsaye Report has not been implemented. Further rhetoric or procrastination on this matter will inflict more harm on the country. No nation has ever advanced beyond its public service.

Therefore, the Tinubu government should trim the size of its bloated government to save costs and engender a new orientation and attitude towards public resources and public service in line with the Oronsaye Report.

There is no doubt that reform can fundamentally transform Nigeria’s public civil service, contributing to national development and a better quality of life for its citizens. Therefore, following the recommendations of past public service reforms, government should increase accountability and transparency in the public service to reduce corruption and misuse of public funds. Public service reform can strengthen public institutions, support the rule of law and democratic processes, and attract international investors seeking predictable and fair administrative processes. It can streamline processes and reduce bureaucratic red tape, leading to faster and more efficient service delivery. This can enhance productivity and ensure that public services meet the needs of citizens more effectively.

Reform often includes training and capacity-building initiatives for public servants, which can improve their skills and knowledge. It also enhances working conditions and motivation, leading to higher morale and job satisfaction among employees. A reformed public service is better prepared to handle crises and emergencies. Improved coordination, resources, and response mechanisms can enhance the government’s ability to manage natural disasters, health emergencies, and other unforeseen challenges.