Ministers should stay clear of project management

Mar 23, 2025 Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- Picture a Minister, seated at the head of a table, leaning forward, looking a contractor dead in the eye, and asking, “You want me to find another contractor for this project?” The room falls silent.

It has actually happened and was not the first time a Minister made such a public spectacle of contract management. We’ve seen contracts terminated on-site, project cancellations announced by politicians, and even the Head of State personally grilling contractors, Ministers and Permanent Secretaries about delays at an early morning interrogation.

But here’s the question—since when did Ministers become project managers? Since when did policy leadership mean micromanaging construction sites?

Ministers should stay clear of project management. This is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary. And when it comes to the relationship between Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, this is a delicate but essential one in any professional public service.

The Report on Public Administration in Guyana (1966) provides a useful framework for understanding this relationship. The report outlines the critical importance of maintaining a clear separation of roles. It cautions against Ministers overstepping their responsibilities and emphasizes the Permanent Secretary’s authority over administrative and operational matters within a Ministry.

Ministers have a distinct and crucial role in government. They are responsible for shaping policy, setting priorities, and ensuring that their Ministries align with the broader national agenda. However, this authority does not extend to the direct management of projects or public service administration.

The Report on Public Administration in Guyana (1966) explicitly states in Section 30 that while Ministers exercise “general direction and control over the Department,” – another way of saying ‘the making of policy’ –, the actual administration and supervision of the Ministry or Department are the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary. This distinction is vital to maintaining an effective, accountable, and non-partisan public service.

Unfortunately, there is a growing trend where Ministers publicly intervene in administrative matters, such as rescinding contracts, threatening to subcontract public projects, or even terminating them outright. This not only undermines the authority of the Permanent Secretary but also disrupts the established processes designed to ensure transparency, fairness, and efficiency in public administration.

The Report on Public Administration in Guyana (1966) highlights several risks associated with Ministers encroaching on administrative functions: First, there is erosion of professionalism. When Ministers bypass the Permanent Secretary and make direct administrative decisions, it compromises the neutrality and professionalism of the public service. As stated in Section 31 of the report, there is an inherent risk in allowing political figures to exercise control over public service operations, as it could lead to favoritism, inefficiency, and weakened institutional capacity.

Second, is the danger of increased Political Pressure. Section 33 of the report warns that Ministers often face pressure from political supporters who may not fully appreciate the constitutional boundaries between political leadership and administrative execution. If Ministers give in to these pressures, they risk turning the public service into a “spoils system,” where contracts and positions are awarded based on political loyalty rather than merit.

Third, is the danger of undermining financial and operational controls. Section 33 of the report explains that while Ministers may be frustrated with bureaucratic procedures, these checks and balances exist for a reason. Permanent Secretaries act as gatekeepers to these processes, ensuring that public resources are managed prudently. Ministerial interference can weaken these safeguards.

Fourth, there is the possibility of a loss of ministerial focus on policy. Section 32 makes it clear that Ministers are most effective when they focus on their primary role: policy-making. The more time they spend interfering in administrative matters, the less attention they give to crafting and improving national policies.

Fifth, is the demoralization of public servants. Permanent Secretaries and other public servants thrive in an environment where their roles are respected. When Ministers override their authority or publicly question their decisions, it creates uncertainty and lowers morale.

The Permanent Secretary serves as the chief administrative officer of a Ministry and ensures that government policies are implemented efficiently and within legal and procedural frameworks. Key responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary include managing contracts and public projects, financial oversight, personnel management and ensuring legal and regulatory compliance.

Ministers must respect the boundaries of their authority and allow Permanent Secretaries to manage the day-to-day administration of government functions. By doing so, they ensure a more efficient, professional, and accountable public service—one that serves the interests of all citizens rather than the narrow goals of political expediency. Ministers must focus on policy, while Permanent Secretaries handle execution. And if the Permanent Secretary cannot effectively implement policy and manage projects, then there is recourse – fire him or her!

(Ministers should stay clear of project management)

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and no not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

 

---

---