Minister for state portfolio redundant, unconstitutional – Keyamo

The Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo, has called on the Federal Government to consider appointing different ministers to handle individual portfolios, saying the post of ‘minister of state’ was a Constitutional aberration.

In his farewell address on Wednesday in the council chambers of the Presidential Villa, Keyamo conveyed his advice.

Elder statesmen and political analysts had been urging the Federal Government to reduce governance in line with Stephen Oronsaye’s white paper recommendation on public sector reforms when he made his remark.

On April 16, 2012, the Oronsaye committee sent in an 800-page report that called for the merger and dissolution of 102 parastatals and government organizations, some of which were self-funding.

This study also recommended merging 52 agencies and eliminating 38 of the 263 statutory agencies, leaving 161 remaining.

It also suggested that 14 agencies should become departments once again.

The “Minister of State” role, according to Keyamo, is essentially not working for many of the people assigned to the position.

He pointed out that many people assigned to these posts by succeeding administrations have repeatedly refrained from speaking out of respect for the Presidents who nominated them.

The Ministers’ and Ministers of State’s Schedules of Duties, which aim to correct some of these irregularities, do little to alleviate the problems. First off, the Permanent Secretaries and Directors frequently violate the Schedules of Duties, even though it is unreasonable to expect them to serve two masters. In any case, because many of the functions of both Ministers are so vague, bureaucrats always interpret them in a way that appeases the individuals they perceive to be the “Senior Ministers” or “Main Ministers” out of fear of retaliation from them.

According to him, the practice first surfaced in the First Republic where it was used as a contraption to give a semblance of “Government of National Unity”, when in actual fact, no “real power” was ceded to the opposition members co-opted into governance.

The ultimate goal of designating such opposition members Ministers of State, he argued, was to keep them in check under the leadership of the ruling Party’s Ministers.

Continuing, he said that over time the custom has come to stay and has been established as a norm, even regarding ministers from the same ruling party.

“In fact, one political absurdity that has emerged from this is that some Ministers of State won more votes from their States for the party in power than the “main Minister. As a result, many Ministers of State are largely redundant, with many going to the office for symbolic purposes and just to while away the time. Files are passed to them to treat only at the discretion of the other Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Yet, the Ministers of State will receive either praise or condemnation for the successes or failures of such Ministries.

“In addition, the provision that “Ministers of State” cannot present Memos in Council, except with the permission of the Minister, is another anomaly. It means the discretion of the Minister of State is subsumed in the discretion of the Minister, yet both of them represent different States in Cabinet. It also follows that it would be difficult to assess the individual performances of the Ministers of State since their discretion is shackled under the discretion of the Ministers. Original ideas developed by a Minister of State are subject to clearance by another colleague in Cabinet before they can sail through for consideration by Council. The drafters of our Constitution obviously did not intend this.

“In my case, whilst the schedule of my colleague had to do more with Labour and Productivity, mine had to do more with Employment. The Directorates in my Ministry that were under my office would then be fully under the Minister of Employment, without any double loyalty to the Minister of Labour and Productivity. We can also have a Minister of Trade and another Minister of Investment. We can have a Minister of Education (Tertiary) and another Minister of Education (Primary and Secondary); we can have a Minister of Mines and another Minister of Steel; we can have a Minister of Works and another Minister of Housing and so on.

“Obviously, the argument that two ministers are cramped into some ministries in order not to unnecessarily proliferate ministries and therefore save Government’s money is no longer tenable. This is because the present Ministers and Ministers of State have separate offices, cars, security personnel, and personal aides. So, what is the point?

“Finally, I want to place it on record again that Mr. Present gave me maximum support as his Minister to function optimally. This treatise is not a personal complaint. This is just a respectful recommendation for record purposes and for the sake of posterity. It is also intended to correct an anomaly that has existed for ages.”