Some have argued that, while it is normal to politically appoint ministers, i.e. based on their clout, influence or contribution to the party, appointments to the civil service must necessarily be on the basis of merit and proven experience.
They explain that technocratic heads of ministries, departments, and agencies must be seasoned personnel, who have a well grounded understanding of how the systems work, and that, it is partly for this reason the Public Services Commission (PSC) was mandated to recruit personnel for the various civil and public services.
Indeed, the regulatory mandate of the PSC in respect of professional standards and ethics of the civil service was not lost on the framers of the Constitution, who in article 196 provided that:
“The Public Service Commission shall have such powers and exercise such supervisory, regulatory and consultative functions as Parliament shall, by law, prescribe, including as may be applicable, the supervision and regulation of, entrance and promotion examinations, recruitment and appointment into or promotions within, the public services, and the establishment of standards and guidelines on the terms and conditions of employment in the public services.”
The Constitution appears to recognise the potential conflict that could arise between the political interest of the political authority and the professional obligations of the civil servant, and so made it difficult for the civil servant to be sacked or removed from office.
Article 191 of the Constitution provides that:
“A member of the public services shall not be –
a) Victimised or discriminated against for having discharged his duties faithfully in accordance with this Constitution; or
b) Dismissed or removed from office or reduced in rank or otherwise punished without just cause”.
The constitution also insulates the PSC from any manner of interference in its work through the provision in Article 198, which states that:
“…except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, or any other law not inconsistent with this Constitution, the Public Service Commission shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority in the performance of its functions”.
It however appears from recent developments that the PSC is being side-stepped in the appointments of some civil servants. Some appointments into vacant positions within the Civil Service are being done exclusively by the political authority, and this, experts say undermines the mandate of the PSC and denies such appointees the protection provided under the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
This view was reinforced by the Executive Secretary of the Civil and Local Government Staff Association of Ghana (CLOSSAG), Mr. Isaac Bampoe Addo who on Thursday, told an Accra-based radio station that the dismissed Information Service Department (ISD) Boss, Mr Francis Kwarteng Arthur, had no business to have served as the head of the institution when he’s never been a civil servant.
He argued that, Mr. Arthur was wrongfully appointed, and that he did not meet the “Scheme of Service” for ISD in the first place. He disclosed that, concerns about his eligibility to serve as the Acting Director of the Department were raised by staff at the time of his appointment, but these, he said, were ignored. Mr. Bampoe Addo imputed political considerations into the appointment of the man whose negligence and poor judgment has caused the nation so much embarrassment.
But the practice of appointing outsiders to head civil service establishments has permeated the service deeper than readers can imagine. Several Ministries are today headed by people who are not products of the civil service, but appointed by the political authority. They have no contract with the Public Services Commission, and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. They spend years working in their various capacities, and as soon as there is a change of government, they are phased out and replaced with other political appointees, this time around, from the succeeding party. Anecdotal evidence suggest that in some instances the removal of civil servants, to make way for political appointees to Chief Director positions do not follow formalised processes. In a particular instance that came to Public Agenda’s attention, the Chief Director who was being replaced, was unaware he had been re-assigned. It only came to his attention, when the political appointee turned up with his letter from the seat of government, and not from the Public Services Commission.
It gets even more ridiculous, where in another instance a certain Sports Minister was re-assigned to another ministry in a re-shuffle, and he took his Chief Director along with him.
What this does to the growth and development of our civil service is that, knowledge and skills retention is undermined when such political appointees have to give way to new ones with every change of government. “This is certainly not the way to build strong and capable institutions” retorted, a governance expert, who chose to remain anonymous.
Source: Steve Manteaw
