Oronsaye, Okauru – A tribute to excellence

The two icons did not follow the traditional footpath; rather, they chose their own paths and left an enviable trail for others to follow. They were principled, focused and determined individuals not impervious to criticisms; rather they met criticisms with facts, figures and roadmaps to where their reforms were taking us. They also took us […]

The two icons did not follow the traditional footpath; rather, they chose their own paths and left an enviable trail for others to follow. They were principled, focused and determined individuals not impervious to criticisms; rather they met criticisms with facts, figures and roadmaps to where their reforms were taking us. They also took us there and our nation owe them a lot of thanks. There is so much despondency around that these were a beacon in the umbra of hopelessness that envelopes our public service landscape. They show us what can be done when we put the proper foot forward.

In spite of records of achievements, neither of the two tried to cling to office. Both bowed gracefully out. Oronsaye already has a national honour to his name, one of the few medals worth the trouble. One could only hope that Okauru would find her name on this year’s list; but above all, that she would continue to mentor younger people, especially women to stand out. These two were not chance successes, they left transparent structures that would not be easily circumvented without uproar. Omoigui showed that Nigeria can generate revenue outside of oil and without overtaxing the poor who are already taxed to the bones. She sent shivers down the spines of business groups who milk our nation but give nothing in return. If the ideal of fiscal responsibility and financial discipline is carried out by government and its functionaries, our nation has the capacity to move. What more, it has the resources, human and material to transform into an Eldorado overnight and without pain. After all, nations with no resources at all have built systems that sustain them.

Oronsaye left the civil service in a better shape than he met it, even though his reforms were hard to bear for some. The service has not collapsed since his exit, prove that no price it is too high to pay when you are sure that it is for the common good. The pain usually is when you are made a scapegoat only for the system to continue as was. Our nation would not make any progress if we keep marking time where we ought to be moving forward. Our forward march must be propelled by the fuel of altruism and the velocity of progress. It should make us proud whenever home-grown icons provide home-grown solutions to the peculiar needs of our clime instead of thinking that foreign-made solutions or foreign-trained hands can better propel our nation. Some home-trained expertise work far better than the prognostications of people who do not live or work here and so are impervious to our peculiar needs.

An Oronsaye as Secretary to the Nigerian state would have been a trusted beacon for President Goodluck Jonathan’s promised Transformation Agenda. Indeed, if, as is widely believed, there is no such agenda in place (since none was presented to the Nigerian populace as a basis for choice), an Oronsaye could have created one. Truth is, with the type of civil service we have, no agenda will work. What the ruling class does is to collude with the civil servants who take time to study and take advantage of the loopholes and together they sabotage the system.

With the new reforms proposed by the Oronsaye Committee, the hawks are out to frustrate its implementation. They have puerile arguments one of which is fear of a purge in the affected agencies. Man has not succeeded in making omelets without breaking eggs. President Goodluck Jonathan should not have set up a committee to look into another committee’s report without as much as looking into the executive summary. Progress is needed and our president must take his job seriously. With so many ministers, SAs, SSAs and the indolent nomenclature, this government needs to move. There would be casualties but effectiveness would soon create openings and with time, those who are casualty today could be consultants tomorrow, helping the system work better with their hindsight. This is the way things work in today’s world.

Depending on the agency in question, the principle of first in first out or vice versa could be applied to make the job of implementation work better. Besides, experience has shown that some people function better in other areas but have been stagnated into a place where their talents cannot be utilised. The duplication in the system is a sleaze drainpipe – there are agencies that exist just to take allocations only for such allocations to be shared while the agencies in question make no significant impact. People who work in these agencies are a strain on the economy and a burden on tax payers. They should be sent out, so that they can use their brains (perhaps for once) and compliment the march to progress. Time is of essence.