The recent resignations and/or replacements of some Ministers of State due to a non-compliance with the Constitutional requirement that dual citizens cannot hold such a position is another uncolorful feather of flaws in the cap of national and institutional development of an entire state machinery.
Is it a demonstration of a lack of capacity for a seamless and less controversial (and embarrassing) management of the affairs of the state? Recently, it was an allocation of government property allegedly contrary to the Constitution and the State Lands Act. The responses have always been the usual deflective and recalcitrant statements to justify the flawed status quo and a persistent failure to rescind the decisions. Is it becoming (or is) a disposition that an entire country must live with a daily way of life of the frequent recurrence of such management inconsistencies and the flaunting of laws by the state itself? A state must have the capacity to deliver and serve the people within the framework of good governance and the rule of law. A capable state is one that governs and delivers goods and services to the people efficiently and effectively.
It should have the required human and institutional capacity to perform its functions diligently and satisfactorily. By extension, such a capacity should have an underlying integrity, aptitude and propensity to solemnly uphold and abide by the laws of the land. Policies and actions of the State that go against the grain of good governance and the laws of a country should not be a commonplace occurrence and should not go uncorrected. It is part of institutional building to painstakingly set the example of doing things properly and in accordance with the law. A simple task of an appointment to the high office of a Minister of State should not have been pervasively flawed. It should not be a matter of taking things for granted or relying on a statement or a show of evidence by a potential appointee or gleaning information from a website link.
It is one thing to renounce a citizenship and an entirely different thing to be struck off as a citizen. The latter is what matters constitutionally. The state machinery should be used effectively to officially undertake due diligence on both the status AND character of such a candidate for high office even where such a person provides a signed, sealed and delivered evidence. What is so difficult to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs to formally and officially make a written enquiry on the status and character of a candidate to his counterparts or the local representatives of the countries in question? That would be a more genuine and robust institutional record. Couldn’t that happen? By the way, it will be interesting to see a reaction, if any, by the reps of the people who have the appropriate committees to investigate such flaws in the management and administration of the affairs of the country. In that case, shouldn’t the responsible Minster be required to produce evidence of such due diligence and the results therefrom? Or will it be a muted business as usual? Institutions are an important part of a vibrant (or perhaps nascent) democracy. An enquiry could highlight what went wrong – whether an inadvertency or an institutional weakness to afford remedial measures to be taken to mitigate any future occurrences of a similar nature and more so, it is part of institutional development.
