A Rejoinder on Adegoroye Seeking Civil Service Reforms ahead of HCSF Appointment

By David Adejo Andrew

Having had the rare privilege of observing all the processes that leads to the selection of a Permanent Secretary – setting questions and marking scripts, a Chairman of a written examination session, an invigilator and participant during the written and Computer based and oral interviews respectively over a span of three years but at different levels that obviate a conflict of interest, I consider it necessary to contribute to what I regard as a long-recurring discourse on the qualifications and criteria for appointments into the office of Permanent Secretaries, from which a Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF) is eventually appointed by Mr. President. This was recently re-echoed by Dr. Adegoroye’s open letter to Mr. President with the above title.

This write-up is not an argument or defense of professionals versus administrative staff competencies in rising to the post of a Permanent Secretary, but a contextualisation of the issues informing selection between the professionals – a class to which I belong alongside my Boss Dr Adegoroye – and administrative staff in providing leadership for the Federal Civil Service.
The issue regarding the decline of the Administrative Cadre and the suggestion that the office of the HCSF should, as a matter of policy, be reserved exclusively for officers from that cadre deserves careful reflection rather than emotional or nostalgic consideration.

Having presided over several Permanent Secretary selection exercises, I can attest that the philosophy guiding public service leadership has undergone significant transformation globally. The era when administrative generalists automatically constituted the exclusive reservoir of top public service leadership has largely given way to competency-based leadership, where strategic management capability, institutional leadership, integrity, adaptability, and the ability to manage complex organisations are regarded as more important than professional origin. This is what has propelled reforms in the Federal Civil Service encapsulated in the Federal Civil Service Strategy and Implementation Plans (FCSSIP) from 2020.

Across advanced public services—including those of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand—the emphasis today is on strategic leadership competencies rather than professional pedigree. Modern Permanent Secretaries and equivalent chief executives are expected to lead multidisciplinary organisations, manage change, inspire high-performing teams, navigate digital transformation, and deliver measurable public value. Human resource management is no longer viewed as the exclusive preserve of one cadre; rather, it is a professional function supported by systems, specialists and institutional processes. Nigeria cannot remain insulated from these global shifts.

Indeed, the evolution of our own Federal Civil Service reflects this reality. The appointment of Permanent Secretaries from professional cadres did not begin recently and goes back as far as the first sets of Permanent Secretaries appointed in the country. Distinguished officers from accounting, engineering, medicine, agriculture, planning, statistics and other professional backgrounds have served creditably as Permanent Secretaries over several administrations. Their performance demonstrated that effective public service leadership depends less on original professional discipline than on the individual’s leadership qualities, institutional exposure, judgement, integrity, and capacity to coordinate complex governmental processes. This appropriately moves from reliance on paper qualification to experience and expertise.

The Nigerian experience itself offers several examples of outstanding Permanent Secretaries who were not career Administrative Officers but discharged their responsibilities with distinction. Equally, history also reminds us that not every Permanent Secretary produced from the Administrative Cadre necessarily excelled in office. The determining factor has always been the individual—not merely the cadre – and the extent to which s/he assumes leadership as a moral and ethical responsibility and not merely administrative and institutional authority.

This is precisely why reforms since 2020 rightly shifted emphasis from seniority and cadre entitlement to merit-based selection involving written assessments, strategic case studies, ICT proficiency, oral interviews, record of service, and integrity evaluation. These reforms were introduced to strengthen professionalism and reduce subjectivity. While no selection process is perfect, the present system is considerably more transparent and objective than earlier arrangements that were often criticised for excessive reliance on seniority and informal influence. The inclusion of the private sector in these processes and re-evaluation of Permanent Secretaries after the first four years – for those who qualify for a second term – indicates further improvements in the selection and retention processes.

However, it would be equally incorrect to ignore the legitimate concerns regarding the gradual weakening of the Administrative Cadre. Besides the declining ethics and value systems in the general populace, a major structural development that deserves attention is the progressive fragmentation of what were once core administrative responsibilities. Over the past two decades, functions traditionally coordinated under one integrated administrative structure have been separated into numerous specialised departments and professional streams. While these reforms were intended to deepen specialisation and improve service delivery, they have also inadvertently reduced the breadth of exposure previously enjoyed by Administrative Officers.

Earlier generations of Administrative Officers rotated through virtually every aspect of personnel management, organisational development, policy coordination, finance, establishment, and general administration before reaching senior leadership. That broad institutional exposure naturally prepared them for strategic leadership. Today’s Administrative Officers often spend entire careers within narrower functional boundaries such as Human Resources, General Services, Special Duties and Reform Coordination and Service Improvement.

To further professionalise the service, officers in Human Resources management (administrative office officers) are requested as a condition for growth, to get professional certification; procurement was made a separate cadre and planning is being repoposed with appropriate staffing to enable them to do what they are meant for and not conflict with other functions. Conseque…