The April Fools� Day cabinet reshuffle announcement and its aftermath
Lawrence Ookeditse | Thursday April 3, 2014 11:10
There is a little matter of blatant opportunism by those who have called press conferences over this: one of their main arguments has been that it shows indecision on the part of the Presidency- that the President does not know what he wants. I find this illogical: the man has made a decision to have people act and have another be assigned to something else. Is that not a decision? How is that proof of being indecisive?
Maybe they disagree with his decision but then I would ask them if they know all that led to him making that decision? They should rather be questioning the modality of this redeployment, not the act of a cabinet reshuffle itself, unless this now means the inconvenience of them having to do a reshuffle of their own?
See, I love the BNF/UDC for one thing, they know how to take time, reflect upon an issue before making public statements on it. Thus, in many instances they do not get things wrong. They are not rash in their actions and public statements as the BCP has the propensity to do. While they have weaknesses of their own, they are measured and considered in responses to some national issues, as opposed to rash.
Anyhow, let us clear the legal hurdles. The President has the prerogative to reshuffle cabinet. Thus we are not going to contest the act of reshuffling cabinet at own time and for his own purposes as empowered by Section 126 (2) of the constitution (we always assume it is for purposes of helping him run the country more effectively).
The only contest perhaps inspired by Section 127, should be former Minister (I still don’t know what the right address is) Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi’s assertion that she is still a Cabinet Minister and whether she now also serves as a civil servant under the public service act. It is confusing: she is right to say she is a Cabinet Minister because she has not been dismissed from cabinet- she merely is on a leave of absence.
I wouldd say the same if I were in the same position. She has not been sacked- she has been temporarily re-deployed to take care of a more pressing issue she says. This is the case with people on secondment; they do not cease to be office holders of their previous duty stations- they are out on some special mission and upon the cessation of such they go back to their offices. This should not shock anyone at this point.
The shock is brought about more by the same section though. Section 126 (2)does note that “A person may be appointed to that office not withstanding that some other person maybe holding that office, when that person is on leave of absence pending the relinquishment of office”. It proceeds to throw us into some confusion on the matter at hand: “and where two or more persons are holding the same office for reasons of an appointment in pursuance of this sub-section, then, for purposes of any function conferred upon the holder of that office, the person last appointed shall be deemed to be the sole holder of that office”.
Thus in my interpretation of that section, there can only be one Minister of Education at any given point in time for purposes of functions of that office-this suggests then that the previous Minister ceases to be Minister or does it not? We know laws can be complex. That however is my interpretation and conclusion. Does this create a headache? The headache comes from what would now seem a dual role of being a bureaucrat and a politician at the same time, but it is no matter to call press conferences upon for it takes very little effort to correct.
Do you continue with Mma Venson-Moitoi as a Minister, is she paid as Minister, does she now work as a consultant or a subordinate to the Permanent Secretary in her ministry? These are legitimate questions that right thinking members of society should find reasonable to ask. But the headache, largely, therefore is of a nomenclature distinction -it is about the naming of her new portfolio and is also about the parameters within which she shall operate.
But it is an avoidable headache and one I would deal with rather swiftly: The constitution allows for special advisors and also allows for Cabinet Ministers without portfolios. I would simply make her a cabinet Minister without portfolio then assign her to take care of that special project. Basically, she needs not be presented as a civil servant governed under the statutory provisions that govern the bureaucracy. I have had my say on that.
In terse, it is possible for a political appointee to perform functions of a civil servant without actually being a civil servant within the strict sense of the bureaucracy as we know it; it is possible for a politician, much as a for a consultant, to perform functions of a civil servant while not being a civil servant. A dispensation that allows for special advisors and such other appointees facilitates for this to happen.
The Westminster system within which we operate has loopholes that allows for this. People are merely shocked because it is a first time in the sense of a Parliamentarian to be so deployed more than anything and also feign alarm partly because it is election year and maximum spinning must be done. There are things that this administration has gotten wrong, no doubt about that, but this is not one of those things in my view.
Now, do I support the action of the cabinet reshuffle? Yes, I do. Firstly I do because the President has a legal right to reshuffle cabinet at his own pleasure you may say- it matters not how far an election is. Secondly, the reasons advanced are perfectly okay for me: the Ministry of Education has not performed as well as we wish it would and this administration has a duty to the country to find ways to make it perform.
This may entail sacking a Cabinet Minister responsible or assigning them to a special project that seeks to improve systems and results. Some may say it is a demotion, which is still fine for in a properly functioning republic no individual should be entitled to staying in an appointed position if the appointee could be of more use elsewhere than in the position they currently hold. This is pure common sense.
Now, Venson-Moitoi has been at the helm and knows some of the measures-local and international – that we have agreed to. She then should proceed to implement those without the day to day encumbrances of running a ministerial office. This, right thinking members of society should not dismiss in totality-unless they are of some ulterior motive.
Should Venson-Moitoi be a worried woman? Well, in all honesty, she knows why she has been redeployed; personally she knows why thus she should know whether to worry or not to worry. One thing though: you should know something is wrong when those who usually said you are useless, a liability suddenly pity you and portray you a heroine of sorts. But you should still be worried if redeployed, it may mean something- whether good or bad we do not know yet.