By EMMANUEL EDUKUGHO
A great and historic advance in the running of government was made recently by President Goodluck Jonathan which jostled the nation when all the ministers in his cabinet signed the Performance Contract Agreement (PCA) during the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting in Abuja.

It’s like an evaluation bond to assess performance of ministers which stipulates timelines for meeting set goals and targets. Some days after, Prof Barth Nnaji, Minister of Power resigned from the cabinet in controversial circumstances and the president accepted the resignation with immediate effect.

SIGNING OF PERFORMANCE DOCUMENT—President Goodluck Jonathan (right), flanked by Water Resources Minister, Mrs Sarah Ochekpe; Women Affairs Minister, Hajiya Zainab Maina and Education Minister, Prof. Ruqqayat Rufai during the signing of performance agreement and contracting system document at the State House, Abuja, recently . Photo: Abayomi Adeshida.

Coming on the heels of the performance contract deal with President Jonathan, Prof Nnaji is the first minister to lose his job since this administration came into existence in 2011.

Conflict of interest was given as reason.  What a strange coincidence, moreso when the power sector is deemed to be on track towards efficient and enhanced power supply.

Jonathan had explained that the performance bond initiative would make the ministers accountable, productive, transparent and focused, to deliver to the Nigerian people, “ a better and a greater future.”

He described the signing of the performance contract agreement as “momentous and the first of its kind in the history of our democracy in Nigeria,” adding, “we have set for ourselves a  tough task and there is no going back Nigerians expect a better deal from government and that is what they shall get under my watch.”

He assured every minister who signed the performance bond that it is not meant to witch-hunt anybody, nor assessing ministers to know who will go and who will stay.

The president blamed Nigerian media for failure to live up to their assigned roles to probably monitor and hold government accountable and responsible hence the introduction of the performance contracts which will make ministers assess themselves and know whether they are achieving their targets.

Credible as the initiative seemed, it may be a diversionary device to make Nigerians believe government is becoming accountable to the electorate.

Reactions from a cross section of the populace through electronic and social media monitored by Saturday Vanguard had been diverse, some complimentary, others doubtful about the Jonathan administration’s intention. The need to extend it to the states whereby commissioners should sign such performance contracts with governor was stressed.

In achieving the set targets for ministers, cognizance can be taken of the rural and local communities that constitute the grassroots population, connect and link up with them, ascertain their needs and requirements, thereby key into the transformation agenda of the president.

While the initiative may be a step in the right direction without which performance of ministers cannot be adequately monitored, however it will not deter those who want to tamper with public funds from doing so.

For the performance contract to be meaningful and helpful, our leaders should change their attitudes, become committed to public good, selfless and trusting. They have to give up their penchant for wealth accumulation and see leadership as opportunity for service, not to make money.

In a country with so much poverty and massive unemployment with suffering across the land, ministers, permanent secretaries, directors-general, heads of departments and government agencies should be prepared to render patriotic, selfless service and make a difference.

But a disquieting aspect is that no penalty was attached to the contract for those who default. Mere signing the document is not enough which looks like a toothless bond as it lacked possibility of any sanction against defaulters. In the past, some of our ministers breached the oath of office they swore to when appointed. In the Obasanjo administration for  instance, some ministers were allegedly involved in shady deals, bribery and corruption.

Proper  implementation is also crucial to the success of the initiative. Records have shown that most public policies, agreements and contracts are not implemented even when they had legal arrangement.

Will the performance contract between Mr. President and his ministers be different moreso when it does  not have legal setting, only a political deal involving members of the same party to ordinarily ensure good governance.

The Nigerian factor may not allow the contract to work, some people had argued.

In the first place, should ministers be compelled to sign performance bond before doing the work assigned to them? Judging from today’s circumstances when politicians are mainly concerned about what they can get from the treasury, the bond ethically compels them to work because they have been given targets to accomplish. At the moment, out of the over 36  ministers, only a handful of them can be said to be performing in the perception of the public considering their achievements so far.

Among them probably are those in charge of Works, External Affairs, Agriculture, Trade and Investment, National Planning, Labour Education (State) and Finance.

The performance bond may be a good strategy to wake up other  ministers and make them work. Nigerians want results and any minister found wanting be given the red card, hence it is necessary to include penalty for non-performance.

President Jonathan definitely is obliged willingly or unwillingly to go the whole hog. And to that extent, the performance contract is most likely to change things for better. But let us keep our fingers crossed, wait for what magic the bond would do in fast-tracking national development.