Quite recently, public discourse was again forced to consider an old discourse that borders on whether or not civil servants have the right to engage in partisan politics. This discourse, of course, became heated up given that the political order in Nigeria is already getting into a feverish pitch as a result of ongoing political strategising in readiness for the 2027 general elections.

The next election cycle seems a bit far, but politicians are not usually known to be that patient, especially when it comes to the struggle to gain or retain political power. The usual bickering concerning alignment and mudslinging have already picked up a heightened pace, and it is inevitable that we will once again come to the point of figuring out the political status of civil servants in the whole dynamics.

Quite recently, on August 15, 2025, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF), Mrs Didi Esther Walson-Jack, fired a salvo at the quarterly Stakeholders and Citizens Engagement interactive session. The basis of her argument is the crucial need to safeguard the political neutrality of the civil servants in accordance with their responsibility to any government of the day.

And in response to the old Supreme Court judgment which reiterates the constitutional provision allowing any citizen of Nigeria to participate in politics, the HCSF argues that the constitutional provision (when conflated with the subordinate provision of the public service rules) permits civil servants the fundamental right to privately support any party of their choice without being drawn into the murky space of high-stake political activities.

It did not take too long for the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), through its President, Mr Joe Ajaero, to respond. And it was typical. The NLC countered that both the Nigerian 1999 Constitution and the 2003 Supreme Court judgment—in the INEC v Musa and Others—foreground the right of civil servants, like all other Nigerians, not just to be card-carrying party members, but to also be involved in all other political activities.

The interesting issue is that both the HCSF and the NLC president pointed at the constitutional and the Supreme Court support for that legal stipulation of the constitutional provision of Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitutions states simply: Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.

However, the HCSF insists that civil servants, while adhering to this constitutional provision, must keep in mind the fundamental significance Public Service Rules which define and constrain the administrative behaviour of civil servants. Section 4 of the PSR defines serious misconduct as “a specific act of very serious wrongdoing and improper behavior which is inimical to the image of the service and which can be investigated and if proven, may lead to dismissal.” The PSR then went on to situate engaging in partisan politics as an act of serious misconduct. Does the Public Service Rule then undermine the Nigerian constitutional stipulation?

There is no easy way to mediating this discourse. The two sides of the debate are cogent in the understanding of how the political status of a civil servant must be construed. The entire political order of the Nigerian state is anchored on the constitutional provision which is the final arbiter on any legal issues concerning the government and the citizens of Nigeria.

And the Supreme Court, in its 2003 ruling on INEC v Musa and Others, did well to uphold the Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. But then, the administrative stability, professional status and performance capability of the civil servant to deliver her utmost in terms of articulating and implementing policies is anchored on the ability of the civil servant to remain neutral in political activities and engagements.

At the base of this disagreement between the HCSF and the NLC is the most fundamental dichotomy that inaugurated the public administration. This is the politics-administration distinction which insists that politicians and civil servants have different remits in their connection with the running of a state. While politicians are saddled with the design and formulation of policies that service the social contract, the civil servants are concerned only with the implementation of these policies. And each party’s task is so specified that each need not collaborate or interfere with each other’s responsibilities. However, this dichotomy is not so easily explained and outlined.

This is because it is simply a theoretical construct that different administrative traditions, approaches and contexts could interpret differently. This is because there is a complex framework of relationship between administration and politics, or between civil servants and politicians.

Max Weber notes that a civil servant can either live for politics or live from politics. And both are not mutually exclusive. According to him, “Whoever lives “for” politics “makes it his life,” in the inward sense. He either enjoys the naked possession of the power he exercises, or he nourishes his inward equilibrium and self-esteem with the consciousness of giving meaning to his life by serving a “cause”. Probably every serious person who lives for a cause, also lives from this cause.”

And Weber had the example of Otto von Bismarck who exemplifies living ‘for” politics in both senses of the allure of the naked possession of power and that of serving a cause. As Chancellor, Bismarck inevitably fell into a serious conflict with Emperor Wilhelm II in terms of the content of Germany’s domestic and foreign policies and how they affect the lives of Germans. Of course, Wilhelm fired his chief public servant for his strong political views and participation. However, Wilhelm himself got inextricably lost in bureaucratic officialdom that eventually undermined his government.

The Wilhelm-Bismarck power struggle constitutes one perspective about the politics-administration dichotomy. On the flip side of that dichotomy is the Awolowo-Adebo collaborative efforts that was the basis of the significant infrastructural leadership of the old western region in the immediate post-independence period. That model held strongly to the separation of politics and administration in ways that allowed both to face their remit and ultimately achieve policy formulation and implementation.

To be continued tomorrow.

Olaopa is Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission and Professor of Public Administration.