Festus Keyamo, the Minister of State for Labour and Employment, has argued that many of the people assigned to the position are essentially not functioning in the “Minister of State” portfolio.
He pointed out that many people assigned to these posts by succeeding administrations have repeatedly refrained from speaking out of respect for the Presidents who nominated them.
He asserted that the position of “minister of state” is a constitutional aberration and that the Federal Government should take into consideration creating several ministers to manage distinct ministries.
Keyamo said this in his Valedictory address in the council chambers of the presidential villa on Wednesday
Elder statesmen and political analysts had been urging the Federal Government to reduce governance in line with Stephen Oronsaye’s white paper recommendation on public sector reforms when he made his remark.
On April 16, 2012, the Oronsaye committee sent in an 800-page report that called for the merger and dissolution of 102 parastatals and government organizations, some of which were self-funding.
According to the research, 52 agencies should be combined, 38 agencies should be eliminated, and 263 statutory agencies should be reduced to 161. It also suggested that 14 agencies should become departments once again.
The spokesman for the disbanded Tinubu-Shettima Presidential Campaign Council noted that the schedules of tasks leave so many yawning holes that frequently put ministers of state against one another while noting that he does not want to be perceived as an ingrate.
The Ministers’ and Ministers of State’s Schedules of Duties, which aim to correct some of these irregularities, do little to alleviate the problems. First off, the Permanent Secretaries and Directors frequently violate the Schedules of Duties, even though it is unreasonable to expect them to serve two masters.
In any case, because many of the functions of both Ministers are so vague, bureaucrats always interpret them in a way that appeases the individuals they perceive to be the “Senior Ministers” or “Main Ministers” out of fear of retaliation from them.
He claims that the practice originally appeared in the original Republic, where it was employed as a device to create the appearance of a “Government of National Unity” even if the opposition figures coopted into government received no “real power” at all.
He stated that the main objective of making such opposition figures Ministers of State was to keep them under the control of the Ministers of the ruling Party.
He went on to say that the practice has endured and become the standard over time, even with reference to ministers from the same ruling party.
