DUE DILIGENCE

It has always been a difficult task for new governments to replace political appointees from previous administrations. This has been the undertaking of the coalition government since it achieved power last year, and it appears that it has had a tough time in recruiting suitably qualified persons.
The government has been very meticulous about its choices to replace those previously appointed political appointees because it is being constantly accused of witch-hunting. Filling the vacancies at the state agencies, boards, departments, and at its embassies and consulates around the world, is being done at a snail’s pace.
Like most governments, political patronage and nepotism have not escaped this government. However, by moving relatively uncertainly, the administration runs the risks of making decisions which could turn out to be costly to the people and the country because those from the previous administration could hinder its policies.
It is important for the government to distinguish between when to act slowly and when not to. It will help the public to understand its decisions. Some are of the view that acting too slowly can impede the progress of the government through acts of sabotage by a few from the previous administration.
There are circumstances in which speed is risky for making political decisions, but given the country’s partisan political landscape, it is warranted. Even though it took the government a while to appoint new members to state boards and agencies, it was a mammoth task that was necessary to ensure continuity of services to the public.
There are also times in which slowness could be harmful to the interest of the people and the country. For example, the slow pace in replacing diplomats and other key personnel has stymied several government policies to the detriment of the nation.
Diplomats are emissaries who are responsible for promoting a country’s interests and image in the international community. They are the eyes and ears of their governments around the world. Though it is an unwritten rule, it is normal for political appointees including ambassadors and high commissioners to offer their resignations whenever a new government takes office, and demit office unless told otherwise.
For the record, most of the diplomats did not, and it took the government almost a year to replace some of them. With respect to certain foreign postings which are of critical importance to the country, many believed that the government should have replaced them much earlier.
Even though the government is known for taking its time, there are questions in respected circles about the quality of some of the appointments which the government has made so far. They do not believe that the government has done due diligence on some of its overseas recruits.
The question is: Has the government done due diligence? Has it obtained sufficient evidence/proof to validate the experience of its new recruits? Not doing due diligence could disgrace the government in the long run if it is revealed that after all this time, some of its choices represent no more than figureheads.
Because due diligence has not always been done in the past is no justification for this government to continue the practice. It will be a neglect of duty. Verification of one’s qualifications and experience is vitally important, therefore the government should not only accept resumes as the definitive factor.
Due diligence is meant to validate one’s qualifications and it must be done to avoid embarrassment. It must be a thorough and complete process. This means having due diligence is all about authenticating facts, doing away with assumptions, and unearthing more information about your intended choices.
Government is serious business. Due diligence is a key element of serious governance.