It is very disheartening and unfortunate that our Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, could say that there are criteria for appointment of ambassadors in foreign affairs apart from seniority and quota.
Please what criteria do we use in the civil service for officers who have served meritoriously and on grade level 17? Is the criteria used to appoint level 16 over and above their seniors level 17 according to the Public Service rules fair? I am curious about the criteria that were employed in the appointment.
The SGF was said to have stated that it was the prerogative of Mr President to nominate whoever he desires. But then, what is the fate of serving Directors who having spent all their adult life are only waiting to be appointed Principal Representative of their President by share professional calling.
The question of prerogative as ascribed to the SGF is an afterthought probably drafted for him as a defence by the Foreign Office leadership in order to justify their unfortunate decision.
It is pitiable that the SGF could issue such a weak statement; which in its entirety smacks of lack of knowledge on Foreign Service administration.
Additionally and ridiculously so, how will it sound for a superior officer on SGL 17 address his subordinate on SGL 16 who has suddenly become an “Excellency ” before him without any rational justification?
For Heaven’s sake, we should not because of parochial interests re-invent the wheel. The issue is why can’t people adjudged to be people of integrity own up when they falter?
In the final analysis, those wronged should be compensated by conferring on them the appointment they have been waiting for all these three decades and above.
