The Principal Permanent Secretary, the government’s chief public servant, and the Ombudsman appear to have quite divergent views on the bloated public service and the numbers of positions and persons of trust employed directly by the government without calls for application.
According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the situation has now gotten out of hand and has questioned whether employment on the basis of a person of trust is even constitutionally correct.
In his annual report for 2018 tabled in Parliament on Monday, the Ombudsman noted that the Office of the Prime Minister has reiterated that the engagement of persons in positions of trust are made in line and in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution governing employment in the public administration.
He said very clearly in his report, ‘The Ombudsman has time and time again highlighted this issue noting that there is consensus that it is required to have a small number of persons employed in positions of trust. It seems however that the practice has gone out of hand and he has recommended that the issue should be debated, crystallized and appropriate legislative and constitutional amendments introduced.’
Last year this newspaper carried out an exercise, based on Freedom of Information requests filed with each and every ministry, which showed the there were, at the time, around 700 people employed by the government as persons of trust, consultants, employed in positions of trust, or as politically appointed individuals.
But the Principal Permanent Secretary, in answering questions from the press this week, insisted that the number of persons of trust engaged by the government is the same as the number that had been engaged back in 2010.
But he said so without furnishing any numbers whatsoever. And that is, perhaps, where the devil is lying in the detail.
That is because back in 2016 persons of trust were split into two, persons of trust and positions of trust, effectively blurring the lines of direct state recruitment for the chosen ones.
The new policy was drawn up separating the definitions of person of trust and position of trust, effectively creating two separate categories.
According to that policy, ‘Engagement on a trust basis will primarily be classified in terms of whether the individual concerned is being engaged from outside or within the Public Administration. Individuals engaged from outside the Public Administration will henceforth be termed as ‘Persons of Trust’. The duration of the contract shall be either of one year renewable yearly, or for a three-year period renewable for a further period of three years. Ministries may engage such individuals on a full or part-time basis.
But conversely, public officers and employees engaged on a trust basis began being deemed as occupying a ‘Position of Trust’ and are regulated by a related three-year, renewable contract.
So when the Principal Permanent Secretary says that the number of persons of trust being employed by the government on a position of trust basis, he may not be giving the entire picture because we also have the additional category of persons of trust.
Should the Principal Permanent Secretary care to supply us with numbers showing a different picture, we would be more than happy to go over them.
Don’t get us wrong, the fact that the government is employing hundreds of people in positions of trust and as persons of trust, as highlighted in today’s issue, is absolutely nothing new.
But the fact that successive administration after administration employ their blue-eyed boys and girls in their ministries without any call for applications or formal vetting processes does not render a wrong a right.
Of course there are those individuals that necessarily need to enjoy the trust of those who appoint them, such as chiefs of staff and private secretaries, this is beyond reproach. But when it comes to other more mundane appointments from outside the public service, it is entirely reproachable and possibly unconstitutional and illegal.
In fact, the Ombudsman sounded the alarm bell as far back as last October when he categorically stated that such employment by the government was ‘irregular’ in that there are clear rules in the Constitution determining how such people should be recruited from outside the public service.
That is because, according to the Constitution, recruitment from outside the public service should not discriminate between people based on their political beliefs and any such employment should only be done in the interest of the public service and the country in general.
But the Principal Permanent Secretary this week could not seem to grasp this simple concept when he said he could not understand the constitutional argument being made by the Ombudsman.
At this juncture, perhaps the Principal Permanent Secretary and the Ombudsman should sit down together and thrash out the issue because the public has a right to know exactly what is going on here and should not be made to decide which version of events is correct. There is only one truth, and the public is entitled to it.