INTERDICTION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICES OF GHANA

INTERDICTION IN THE PUBLIC SERVICES OF GHANA

In recent times, the term “Interdiction” has gained traction as an administrative disciplinary procedure in some public sector organisations. Off my head, I can mention the recent case of the President of the Korle Bu Hospital Senior Staff Association with Management of the Hospital; some ADB staff and the recent past Managing Director and of course my own case with the Head of the Local Government Service. There is nothing wrong with interdiction as an administrative disciplinary procedure and I particularly have no qualms with its application, if done properly. My worry however, is how it is currently being applied in some public sector institutions. It is gradually appearing as if Interdiction is now being used as a “Silencing tool” rather than for the purpose for which it was intended. And if you didn’t realise, in recent times too, interdiction has a twin sister called “bringing the service or organisation into disrepute”. Day in, day out, the actions and inactions of individuals in positions of authority bring state institutions to their knees with dire and sometimes embarrassing consequences and yet that is not seen as bringing those organisations into disrepute but dare talk about what is happening in those institutions and it is called “bringing the institution into disrepute”. Dare challenge the competence or actions of top management and it is called “bringing the institution into disrepute” and you will be interdicted.

The abuse of the term “interdiction” did not just start today. As far back as 1996, the Public Service Commission had cause to worry about how interdiction was being used or applied in the Public Services. In a document sighted by yours truly emanating from the Public Services commission, paragraph 2 states “The returns received, though not exhaustive, already provide staggering evidence of public officers who have been on interdiction or indefinite leave for well over one year in the majority of cases, and who have been receiving part of their pay for doing no work. What is even more disconcerting is the absence of any sign that the employing organizations of these officers are taking any steps to have these long outstanding matters resolved. This state of affairs is most unsatisfactory, to say the least.” And in order to curb this “unsatisfactory state of affairs”, the Commission went further to provide guidelines on how to interdict Public Servants by stating in paragraph 3a of the same document that “Orders given for public officers to be interdicted or to proceed on indefinite forced leave should be simultaneously accompanied by the institution of disciplinary or criminal proceedings aimed at establishing the culpability or innocence of the officer. Such orders should be immediately copied to the Public Services Commission, which should also be informed of the outcome of the proceedings to enable the Commission effectively monitor the process”.  Speaking for myself and one other interdicted officer of the Local Government Service that I know, nothing of this sought was done.

Reading from the above, it is clear that interdiction is a means to an end and not an end in itself. It is to be applied when further disciplinary or criminal proceedings are to be taken against an officer. It is not a punitive measure or penalty in itself. There are major and minor penalties in the public service to be considered in case of any infringement and INTERDICTION is NOT one of them. It is not as if at every infringement, one must be interdicted. NO! NO!! NO!!!

Section 46(a) of the condition of service for the Local Government Service even makes it clearer as to how interdiction is ordered. It states “Interdiction MAY be ordered:

i) where FURTHER disciplinary proceedings are to be taken against an officer;

ii) where the officer is the subject of criminal investigation or offence, whether or not connected with the officer’s work;

iii) where the continued presence of an officer at his/her work-place may influence investigations into an offence allegedly committed by the officer.” This is the intended purpose of interdiction in the public services. What happens invariably in most of these public institutions is that, in their rush to show that they have the power (forgetting that it is not theirs but that of the state) flagrantly abuse administrative disciplinary procedures. This rush to interdict at the least provocation is definitely not the way to go because when people seek redress in the courts, such rush decisions are most likely to be overturned. This is what feeds into the notion that it is difficult to terminate appointments in the public sector. I disagree! There are very elaborate and fair processes outlined in the Public Services but they are mostly ignored. 

In the Public Service, an officer on interdiction is to receive fifty percent of his/her salary whiles at home. And if the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings does not result in dismissal/termination, the remaining 50% of the salary withheld is to be paid with interest at the prevailing rate. Clearly, this imposes a duty on disciplinary authorities to be extra careful in ordering interdiction. In other words, interdiction should be ordered when the misconduct is likely to result in the dismissal/termination of the appointment of the officer. Reckless use of interdiction will only result in financial lost to the state because at the end of the day, people will be paid for work not done which will be no fault of theirs. If done without any due diligence or done to punish or silence staff as we are currently increasingly observing, then the state ends up paying for people who have not worked and productivity suffers. I am sure in states where systems work, interdictions would be the last resort giving the guidelines upon which it operates because one could easily be cited for wilfully causing financial lost to the state but of course we are in systemic-failure-ridden Ghana where people in certain positions of authority are always right while their subjects are always wrong and bring the name of their institutions into disrepute. Boggling my mind is the kind of reputation there is in many of these institutions? Everywhere you go, people are talking about the failure of these institutions and yet we are least concerned about that.

In the guidelines on Interdiction, the Public Services Commission rests the responsibility for ensuring compliance to the guidelines on institutional heads. The commission says that if institutional heads default in this regard, their competent disciplinary authorities should impose on them sanctions not exceeding the value of the total loss to government or the employing organisation, in terms of pay. In most public sector institutions, the competent disciplinary authorities referred to above are the boards or councils. But again, in a country where CEOs, MDs or Heads of institutions appear to have more power than their boards or councils, expect nothing to happen to heads of institutions who go contrary to these guidelines. And that is one of the problems of this country; corporate governance in most public institutions only happens on paper.

To buttress my point of reckless use of interdiction, let me cite this example that I am aware of. An officer is found to have contested for the internal parliamentary primaries of a political party. This obviously is against the public servants’ code which requires the public servant to be apolitical. This code specifically states that “... a public servant shall not openly participate in partisan political activities, seek political office whilst still in the public service...”. The officer unfortunately did not win the primaries. This information gets to the head of his institution and immediately the officer is interdicted. No disciplinary proceedings to date and close to eight (8) months now the interdiction is not over, a clear violation of the guidelines on interdiction. Several questions beat my imagination:

1. Is this a crime or offence that should lead to dismissal/termination especially considering that the person is a first time offender? If you ask me, it is a big NO! I don’t think this should lead to dismissal/termination. I am sure if this officer had won the primaries, he would have resigned from the service.
2. And why didn’t they institute any disciplinary or criminal proceedings? Well, if you ask me, I will say it is the usual thing in the public sector where head of institutions feel they have the power to do anything and goes ahead to do whatever they want with impunity because nobody questions them.
3. And why then was the officer indicted? Simple, I will show you where “power” lies!
4. Will this particular case be addressed appropriately by the appropriate authorities? I will do my best to bring it to the attention of the needed authorities but I have my doubts. The courts may be a better place.

These things get particularly worrying when you become aware of other happenings in the same system. In another rather very curious case, this person contests on two occasions as a parliamentary candidate on the ticket of another political party and loses on both occasions but is rather wholeheartedly accepted back into the system with a reward of automatic promotion whereas the other is being punished for a similar and in my opinion, a lesser offence.

Well, it is not strange to me though! This is what we get when certain peoples’ actions are not questionable. This is what we get when questioning of one’s actions is seen as disrespect. This is what we get when appointments are not based on competence and merit. This is what we get when education fails to educate us. We are who we are and the fruits of our labour are just a reflection of ourselves (1 Corinthians 3:8). We can only be as good as our collective selves. I am sad and angry with the state of affairs in this country and I keep wondering if this is what Nkrumah meant by “... after all, the black man is capable of managing his own affairs”.

Have I deviated from my main point of interdiction? NO! Bad leadership partly thrives in an environment where there is a culture of silence, empirical evidence suggests to me. So, the increasing ill-use of interdiction to silence people who want to expose the weaknesses of bad leaders is my bane. We cannot correct ourselves or change course if we continue sweeping everything under the carpet. If we do that, greedy and self-seeking individuals will continue to do things for their selfish interest and not for the common good. That is partly the reason why we are where we are as a people. We’ve got to talk about the ills, make noise about ills and act against ills else, as said by one of my senior brothers, we delude ourselves into self-destruction. I rest my case for now but I shall surely be back! 

Charles A. Akurugu

[email protected]