In June 2024, and in the Gumi City Council of South Korea, a service robot—or Robot Supervisor—was alleged to have committed “suicide.” This event is just one of the many bizarre and chilling incidences that herald the consequences of the unraveling of artificial intelligence and robotics in contemporary human affairs. In the same South Korea in November 2023, another robot deployed in a vegetable plant fatally crushed a man to death because it could not differentiate between the man and the boxes of vegetables.

Some seven years earlier, in 2017, Sophia—the first humanoid robot—became the first robot citizen of Saudi Arabia and an innovation ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme. All over the world, and due to the increasing deployment of AI and robotics in various professional fields—from engineering to surgery and the public service—we will never know the statistics of fatalities that might have resulted due to robotic malfunctions.

Two significant facts about South Korea will bring the two earlier incidents into clearer relief. One, South Korea has the highest robot density in the whole world. Statistics claim that there is at least one robot for every ten people in the country. To put it clearly, robots have been deployed almost everywhere in South Korea. Most importantly, robots, like Sophia, have become not just administrative assistants but effectively civil servants working tirelessly in state and city councils.

The second fact that connects with the so-called robot suicide is that South Korea has the unenviable record of being one of Asia’s most overworked countries. South Koreans work fifty-two hours per week, from 9am to 9pm every day. The total of 1915 hours per year is 200 hours more than the average clocked by any countries within the OECD nations. It was inevitable that the South Koreans would invent a name for death by overwork: gwarosa.The Japanese call it karoshi.

It is therefore no surprise that even a service robot would “feel” the fatal pressure of the overworked workplace, and develop a glitch that plunged it to its death. This facts about South Korea allow me to draw specific correlations and implications for public administration and the public service in postcolonial Nigeria, especially in terms of institutional reforms and what we can call the imperative of technological modernisation, public service ethics, productivity and democratic governance that can make the public service a genuine backstop for launching a developmental state in Nigeria.

The Asian countries are notorious for the template of their work ethic. This ethic connects working longer hours with the value of diligence and perseverance which translate to a productive persona. The Robot Supervisor was integrated into the (over)work culture, working from 9am to 6pm daily.

There is a similarity between the workplace pressure in Asia and in Africa. In 2025, the ten most hardworking countries in Africa, ranked by an average weekly work hour, are Sudan (50.8), Lesotho (50.2), Republic of the Congo (48.7), Sao Tome and Principe (48.2), Liberia (47.5), Egypt (45.6), Burkina Faso (45.3), Cape Verde (45.3), Zimbabwe (45.0), and Senegal (44.9). Even though work hours do not always automatically translate into productivity, Nigeria, at 39.6 hours per week, does not qualify as a hardworking nation.

This work hour might actually reflect a work culture that is less than salutary within the context of what Nigerians usually call the ‘Nigerian Factor”; a key dimension of which is the indolence that attends working in a government institution. This plays into the overall fabric of institutional dysfunction, especially in the over-bloated and ineffective public service, where too many people doing nothing, too many doing too little, and too few people doing too much.

A significant dimension of institutional reform and modernisation of the dysfunctional public service in Nigeria is the imperative of open and transparent government that demands the deployment of technological creativity and innovation in fast tracking efficiency in government business, and ultimately productivity. This technological imperative lies beneath the need for computerisation, digitisation and automation of the public service to increase and deepen efficiencies.

Given the furious development in AI and the demonstration of their efficiency in assisting government to achieve their administrative goals, we can say that Nigeria is grossly behind in creating an efficient workplace where the robotic and human civil servants can work side by side in energising the public service workplace for efficient and effective service.

And yet, the level of our anxiety with being behind in the AI deployment race must be directly proportional to the level of our carefulness in learning from the technological experiences of other countries in ways that will feed Nigeria’s institutional reform trajectory. Experience, and definitely example, is the best teacher, as they say! The Gumi City Council AI incident says and teaches significant lessons. At the fundamental level, the incidence calls to the fore the context of interaction between human and machines, and the ethical framework that ought to guide that interaction.

This implies that reflections about AI and its reality must first be grounded within the sociocultural circumstances of those who are deploying it. AI, when it begins to function, is a reality within a specific milieu. And so, it is not a phenomenon that must be taken as an unconscious default adaptation process. When South Korea adopted and adapted it, it was within a specific demographic, administrative and cultural context. Any thought that goes to the need to deploy AI must be thoughts that consider the context within which it is to be deployed and those that it will affect, positively and negatively.
To be continued tomorrow.
Prof. Olaopa is the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission.