Governor Namadi and the empty offices at the state secretariat

WHEN Governor Umar Namadi of Jigawa State embarked on a surprise inspection of the state secretariat on Monday, July 20, he expected to assess the level of discipline and productivity in the civil service. Instead, he stumbled upon a damning portrait of administrative decay. By 11 a.m., well into the working day, the offices of senior government officials remained locked, top civil servants were nowhere to be found, and the sprawling secretariat resembled a ghost town rather than the engine room of state governance. In the now-viral video of the inspection, the governor moved from one ministry to another, encountering little more than security personnel and a handful of messengers.

According to a statement issued by his Special Assistant, Garba Muhammad, the inspection formed part of a statewide exercise to monitor staff attendance, punctuality and workplace productivity. It was presented as another step in the administration’s campaign to strengthen discipline, accountability and efficiency. Yet the symbolism of what unfolded overshadowed the official explanation. If the Secretary to the State Government, the Head of Service and other senior officials are absent during an unannounced visit by the governor himself, what incentive remains for junior officers to take their responsibilities seriously?

The episode is more than an embarrassment to the Jigawa State government. It is a metaphor for the condition of Nigeria’s public service. Across the federation, absenteeism, lateness and indifference have become deeply entrenched features of bureaucratic life. Many offices function below capacity, while employees who report to work often spend most of the day in unproductive conversations or private engagements. Such behaviour reflects not merely individual failings but institutional failure. Where rules are rarely enforced and leadership tolerates indiscipline, inefficiency inevitably becomes the organisational culture. What was striking, however, was not only what the governor discovered but also how he responded. Governor Namadi expressed disappointment, but there was no indication of immediate disciplinary action against those who had abandoned their duty posts. A surprise inspection that produces no consequences risks becoming little more than political theatre. Accountability requires more than expressions of concern. It demands sanctions that reinforce the seriousness of public responsibility. Without visible consequences, absenteeism simply becomes another cost-free habit.

Yet assigning all the blame to civil servants would ignore the harsh realities under which many of them work. Across Nigeria, inflation and the rising cost of living have severely eroded public sector salaries. Even where the new minimum wage has been implemented, many workers struggle to meet basic household expenses. Transport costs alone consume a significant portion of monthly earnings. In Dutse and many other state capitals, soaring fuel prices and escalating transport fares have turned the daily commute into a financial burden. For some workers, the cost of travelling to work rivals the value of the day’s labour. Faced with unreliable electricity, inadequate office facilities and little prospect of performance-based rewards, many inevitably lose motivation. These conditions do not justify absenteeism, but they help explain why workplace discipline continues to deteriorate. Improving productivity therefore requires more than punishment; it also requires creating conditions under which workers can perform effectively.

Nevertheless, poor welfare cannot excuse the complete collapse of professional standards. Public service is built on a social contract. Government employees receive salaries funded by taxpayers in exchange for delivering essential public services. When officials simply fail to report for duty, that contract is broken. Citizens pay twice, first through taxation and again through the poor services they receive. Nor should Governor Namadi escape scrutiny. Administrative decay does not emerge overnight. It develops gradually under leadership that either overlooks misconduct or fails to establish effective systems of supervision and accountability. If the governor was genuinely shocked by the empty offices, he must also recognise that the culture of indiscipline evolved under his administration. Leadership is measured not by surprise inspections but by the systems it creates to ensure that such inspections reveal compliance rather than failure. In that sense, the inspection was as much an indictment of executive leadership as it was the absentee officials.

ALSO READ: Gov Namadi unveils five-year development plans for 27 LGAs

The implications extend far beyond attendance registers. A civil service that is absent from work cannot formulate and implement policy, deliver social services, supervise development projects or mobilise internally generated revenue. The machinery of government depends upon competent and committed public servants. When that machinery grinds to a halt, governance itself becomes performative rather than productive. Development suffers, investor confidence declines, and public trust in government continues to erode. The problem is reinforced by Nigeria’s system of fiscal federalism. Because many states and local governments rely overwhelmingly on monthly allocations from the Federation Account, the link between productivity and institutional survival has weakened. Bureaucracies that do not generate resources or face meaningful performance evaluation have little incentive to improve efficiency. A stronger emphasis on internally generated revenue, performance management and measurable institutional outcomes would help to restore that connection. Civil servants who understand that organisational performance affects the sustainability of government finances are more likely to appreciate the importance of productivity and accountability.

Governor Namadi deserves credit for exposing a problem that many public officials prefer to ignore. But exposing the problem is only the beginning. The inspection should trigger comprehensive civil service reforms, including stricter attendance monitoring, digital timekeeping systems, routine performance evaluations, enforceable disciplinary procedures, improved working conditions, and remuneration that reflects economic realities. Reform requires both the carrot and the stick: better welfare for workers alongside uncompromising accountability for those who neglect their duties.