An Enabling Environment for Public Service and Justice Administration

Jun 22, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The challenge of establishing and maintaining a professional and politically neutral Public Service, and constitutional position with persons of high integrity for effective management and administration has eluded every government administration from the 1960’s and continues today in 2017. In spite of principled statements on public administrations from heads of successive governments, no serious attempts have been made to transform and professionalise the public service, and liberate it from the strangle hold and continuing control of the political directorate of the day. This ongoing unsatisfactory situation is related to the reality of ethnic and race politics for over six decades by the two major political parties – the PPP and the PNC. Their conduct is often characterised by intense adversarial political contests with no national consensus on major issues.
More recently their conduct has impacted negatively on the independence of the Judiciary and other Constitutional Bodies. The Judiciary, judges, magistrates and the chairpersons and members of constitutional and statutory bodies must demonstrate to the public their resistance to political interference in the independent discharge of their constitutional and statutory duties, and expose to the public such interference in conflict with the law. Their integrity must go before them to rebuild public confidence, and high trust in these institutions.
Judicial Officers and holders of Constitutional and Statutory bodies must be able and courageous enough to let the politicians and political directorate know, in no uncertain or quiet way, that they would reject any political intimidation and not yield to their unwholesome political dictates and wishes outside the law. They must be exposed through various means.
The high or low incumbent political figures must be told that: “not because we are appointed by your administration, we will have to rule in your favour. We will rule and act in accordance with the Constitution and all other laws with fairness, equity and justice based on the law and the substantial merits of any case before us.” They must maintain the constitutional and legal separation of powers and jealously guard their independence.
In the national interest and the common good for all the citizens of this country, the political parties must work for the required changes in our politics to create more inclusive and broad-based governing structures through constitutional and other legislative changes, if we are in our lifetime, to achieve national unity and social cohesion. The governing authorities of the Executive and the National Assembly must create and foster an enabling environment for public officials in public institutions to function without fear or favour.
The CoI Report in the Public Service 2016, under the Chairmanship of Professor Harold Lutchman draws attention to this continuing situation, in the public service in particular, and made several recommendations to address the issues. The CoI directs attention to approaches in Commonwealth Caribbean and other states where alternative arrangements are relevant to Guyana in the attempt to restore public confidence in the public bureaucracies and the political directorate. Some of these measures were recommended by two predecessor Commissions of Inquiry but, were not implemented, no doubt to suit the advantage of the political administration of the day.
The CoI notes that the Burgess-Hunn Commission had, as early as 1966, recommended that the constitutionally established Public Service Commission and a Public Service Ministry should function under, “…a Public Service law in which the governing principles are laid down. The basic tenets would be embodied in a Public Service Act.” More pointedly, that Commission had recommended a strong well-structured and capable Public Service Ministry, buttressed by a Public Service Act which clearly defined the functions of a Public Service Ministry as the premier Ministry responsible for public management and administration.
The Act was to define the status and duties of the Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Ministry with powers, duties and responsibilities for the effective organization of the departmental and ministerial machinery of Government and human resource management, outside the constitutional remit of the Public Service Commission. In addition, the Commission specifically recommended, “That the Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Ministry, as primus inter pares, be the convener of the Permanent Secretaries’ Committee to discuss and implement ways and means of improving efficiency and economy.” The Collins Commission of 1969 also supported and recommended the enactment of a Public Service Act. Such a Law, together with the National Constitution, is designed to address actual or potential problems between the political directorate and public servants.
The Lutchman CoI of 2016 pointed out that a Public Service Act is a common instrument in the search for effective public management and public administration in CARICOM countries. Such enactments exist in Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Jamaica, Belize and the Cayman Islands, and, further afield, in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The 2016 CoI recommended the enactment and promulgation of a Public Service Law along the lines of the other countries cited. Such a Public Service Law and related Regulations could promote the effective management and administration of the Public Service and insulate and protect it from irregular and undesirable influences, thereby enhancing its status and productive capacity.
The Commission also recommended that the Public Service Ministry/Department and the Public Service Commission should be constituted with professional personnel with high integrity to rebuild trust and confidence in the public administration services. These same requirements are applicable to the Judiciary, Constitutional Service Commissions and Statutory Bodies. The CoI further recommended that urgent action be taken to enact a Code conduct for all public servants. Similarly a legally enforceable code of conduct must be enacted for the Executive Members, Ministers, and Members of the National Assembly, who must be obedient, on pain of penalty, to the requirements of the Integrity law.
Joshua Singh

---

---