The Role of the Public Complaints Commission in Protecting Worker’s Rights Against Administrative Injustice and Mal Administration in Nigeria

The Role of the Public Complaints Commission in Protecting Worker’s Rights Against Administrative Injustice and Mal Administration in Nigeria

CHAPTER ONE

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the research work are an attempt to:

Examine the law in the Public Complaints Commission Act and other relevant
Examine the application of the Public Complaints Commission Act for protection of worker’s rights against maladministration in Nigeria
Highlight some factors militating against the effectiveness of the Public Complaints
Provide recommendations, amendments and better ways of protecting worker’s

CHAPTER TWO

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

Worried by public outcry, the Federal Government thought of borrowing the idea of setting up a Commission for listening, receiving and resolving public outcry concerning bureaucratic injustice, a sort of corrective institution. The government wanted an organ that could curtail abuses of all due process and privileges by bureaucrats. It thus set up a panel known as Udoji Public Service Review Panel¹ which went into action. Accepting the Udoji Public Service Review Panel’s recommendation, the Federal Military Government promulgated the commission’s enabling law, the Decree NO. 31 of 1975.

The Decree was further amended by another Decree NO. 21 of 1979³, before handing over power to the civilian in that year. The commission’s enabling law was entrenched in section 273 (5) of the 1979 Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria.⁴ The same provision was also retained in the 1999 Constitution (as existing law) under section 315 (5) (b). It is also incorporated in the 1990 laws of the Federation as Public Complaints Commission Act CAP P.37 and in the current Law of the Federation, 2004.

Broadly, the Act provides for the establishment of the Public Complaints Commission at the federal level and “such number of branches of the Commission in the states of the federation as the National Assembly may from time to time determine that the appointment of the Chief Commissioner and other commissioners shall be by the National Assembly. They shall be men of proven integrity who shall hold office for a term of three years in the first instance and shall be eligible for re-appointment for the second term of three years and shall vacate office at the expiration of the period of six years. The Act also made it clear that a commissioner (including the Chief Commissioner) may at any time be removed from his office or appointment by the National Assembly.

The Commission is also to function via career civil servants⁹ in three separate departments viz:

Investigation Department (Core Service)
Administration Department (Support Service)
Finance & Supply (Support Service)

Government of any country do rely for the execution of most of its policies on the civil service. The Civil Service as one of the executive arms of government is responsible for the translation of the “decision” of the government into reality.¹⁰ It translates policies into concrete realities via action. Thus it has, and functions via professional technocrats and bureaucrats called the civil servants. This class of persons dominated helm of affairs during the colonial and post colonial era. They welded so much influence particularly during General Gowon era (1967-75) that they particularly (Super Permanent Secretaries) decided what policy becomes real. Yet, within it there were series of squabbles and denial resulting into series of unprinted bureaucratic injustices particularly among the lower cadre of the service.

CHAPTER THREE

STRUCTURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT IN NIGERIA

This chapter seeks to examine the structure of the Commission and to assess its ability to function effectively as office of the ombudsman. At a meeting of the International Ombudsman Institution held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in October, 1996 about 121 ombudsperson representing 18 countries from around the world adopted the definition below for the concept of “ombudsman”.

An ombudsman is an experienced, high level public official who is appointed by the head of state or legislature in terms of the constitution or appropriate law to receive and investigate complaints from aggrieved persons against government agencies, statutory corporations or officials and employees of such agencies statutory corporation or officials and employees of such agencies and organisations. Such an officer functions independently of any authority and issues reports to parliament or Head of state.¹

In Nigeria, the ombudsman Institution implies reference to the commissioners of Public Complaints Commission. Section 315 (5) (b) of the 1999 Constitution retains the Public Complaints Commission as an “existing law”. It is indeed an existing law because it was reflected in the 1990 Law Reform Act as Cap P.37 LFN 2004.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION

Headquarters and States Branches

The Public Complaints Commission is an institution with its head office in Abuja the federal capital territory. It also has thirty-six states branches in all the states of the federation and Zonal offices in local government areas of each state. In every state there are five zonal offices. The thirty-six (36) Offices performed their duties and report to the headquarters in Abuja. The Commission is under the executive office of the President, supervised by the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

According to the provision of Section 5 (1) of Public Complaints Commission Act, the state branches function differently from the headquarters of the organisation while the Chief Commissioner of Public Complaints Commission from the headquarters coordinates the activities of the branches through:-

Annual conference or meeting which the Chief Commissioner presides.
National visits to state branches.
Annual report by the state branches.

CHAPTER FOUR

SUBJECT MATTER FOR DECISIONS AT THE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

A clearly defined jurisdiction on subject-matters of laid down complaints serves a number of purposes. The examination of such cases could be useful to the government and the general public. Secondly, the possibility of straying from its central purpose or of being persuaded to take less important tasks will always be greater or the institution which lacks a clearly defined mandate.¹

EXAMINATION OF SOME CASES DECIDED BY THE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

This chapter will examine cases decided and these cases will be categorized into (i) Federal Cases (ii) Cases under State (iii) Cases under Local Government (iv) Private organization Cases (v) Cases against Individual. The Public Complaints Commission has decided many cases as follows:

Federal Cases

The Ombudsman investigated a number of complaints related to public service institutions at Federal level. The nature of some of the reported and investigated cases is always published in the Commission’s Annual Report. The hardships faced by victims for redress by government are due to the laxity and lack of timely actions by government machinery found in cases of unreasonable delays in making payments of terminal benefits to employees, after completing their contracts; inordinate delays in acknowledging receipt of letters. The significance of the role of the Public Complaints Commission as mediator was demonstrated by the numerous reported cases regarding payments of workman compensation, etc. It is worthy to cite a case that was investigated and closed on 31^st January, 2004³ in the cases herein studied:

The Public Complaints Commission demonstrated the constitutional powers conferred on it to redress mal-administration such as when Mr. A. O. Adebanjo took his petition to it on 12^th March 1993 alleging that his employer NIPOST had suspended him from office on 30^th August, 1990 and later on interdicted him on half salary for alleged involvement in a case of embezzlement of government funds at General post Office Makurdi to the tune of sixty –one thousand naira (61,000) Only.

CHAPTER FIVE

OVERVIEW OF OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS IN SOME JURISDICTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Ombudsman is defined as a government official whose job is to examine and report on complaints made by ordinary people about the government or public authorities.’¹ It is also defined as an official of government institution who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against others while the legal definition of Ombudsman is a person whose occupation consists of investigating customers’ complaints against individual, governmental agencies or corporate organizations.

The Encyclopaedia of American Law defines Ombudsman as a man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, special between individual and government or corporate bodies.³ From the foregoing definition, Ombudsman is taken to mean an impartial official who acts as an Independent referee between individuals with other individual and or with government agencies or corporate bodies by treating complaints and bringing out solutions.

FUNCTIONS/DUTIES OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman works as an impartial and independent fact finder in reviewing and resolving complaints related to the department of either family service in child welfare cases or in cases related to individual and government agencies or corporate bodies in finding a lasting redress to the individual problem. This is carried out in a systematic and professional way which includes but not limited to the use of investigating the problems of parties and finding enduring solutions which both parties will be pleased with.

Operation of Ombudsman

There are certain basic principles which every Ombudsman use in carrying out his work. These principles includes: Independence, Impartiality and Confidence.

Impartiality: The Ombudsman is a neutral fact finder when reviewing and resolving complaints. The ombudsman is not an advocate, complaints are reported to commission, and issues in the complaints are resolved in a neutral and impartial manner without taking sides in making
Independence: the Ombudsman usually works independently without relating to any department while carrying out his responsibility, he should be resolute in the resolve of citizens’ issues and complaints and should have total independence without any influence in reporting his decision as determine by his conscious based on his
Confidentiality: the ombudsman does not disclose the identity and other personal information of persons who have filed a complaint without their permission.

CONCLUSION

The aim of this chapter is to conclude what has been discussed in the previous chapters, make some observations and finally offer some recommendations with a view to improving the activities/functions of the Public Complaints Commission in relation to protecting workers rights in Nigeria and guarding against maladministration.

There is no doubt that the draftmanship of the Public Complaints Commission Act, set out to achieve certain objectives germane to the general theme of justice and fairness. One of the most active judicial icons during the making of the Act was Hon. Justice Mohammed Bello who later became the Chief Justice of Nigeria. At a conference for appellate judges in Abuja in 1992, the learned Justice provided an insight into the meaning of ‘justice’ when he said: “Judges should excel by giving essence to justice which is to give a person what is lawfully due to him; to compel him to do what the law obliges him to do”.

REFERENCES

Alan J. W. Executive Ombudsman in the United State (1973) University of California, Berkeley.
Ayeni V. and Sharman K.C; Public Protector Ombudsman in Botswana (2002) Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
Ayoola A. Ombudsman for Nigeria A Paper Presented at a Seminar held in the University of Ife (now OUA) 1970.
Arnold Heidenheimer, Political Corruption: A Comparative Analysis (1998) P.5.
Azinge Epiphany Prop: Issue in Conflict and Disputing, Text of Pater Presented at a Training Workshop on ADR for Judge, (2004).
Chimugu, S. A. (2006); an Overview of Public Complaints Commission Act; A Paper Presented at the Training Workshop for Investigation Officers of the Commission.
Cheryi A. Picard; Mediating Interpersonal and Small Group Conflict New Edition: Revised and Update, Golden Dog press Ottawa-Canada (2002).
Civil Service Handbook Federal Government Printers, Lagos. (2003) P. 12.
Daramola J. B. The Ombudsman Machinery for Curbing Administrative Excesses (yet to the published).
Daramola C.A. (Prof) The Impact of public Complaints Commission on Mal- administrative A Paper Presented at the Training Workshop at Work and Home.

Related Topics:

Other Topics