Perspectives on the Participation of Civil/Public Servants in Partisan Politics in Nigeria: A Call for Rethinking and Revision of the Public Service Rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Towards the 2023 general elections in Nigeria, the debate on the validity and application of the principle of absolute political neutrality of civil servants resurfaced. This principle requires civil servants to abstain from political activities including campaigning and joining political parties. The Federal Civil Service Commission and the Attorney General of the Federation contend that the Public Service Rules prohibit civil servants from political activities. However, the Nigeria Labour Congress and other labour unions disagree and argue that the Public Service Rules contravene the constitution and violate civil servants' fundamental rights to freely associate and belong to a political party. This study interrogates the legality and desirability of the principle of absolute political neutrality in the Nigerian Civil Service. It draws upon the extant statutory framework, relevant jurisprudence, scholarly literature and contemporary practices in other jurisdictions. The finding of this study shows that the Public Service Rules as presently constituted violate constitutional provisions and civil servants' rights to hold and join political parties of their choice. The central argument is that constitutionalism principles in Nigeria and practices in other jurisdictions increasingly invalidate an approach that anchored civil servant loyalty and effectiveness on the principle of absolute political neutrality. The study concludes by recommending that in line with practices in the United Kingdom and Canada, the Civil Service Rules should be revised to permit differentiated prohibitions. This will permit civil servants that hold non-sensitive positions to hold political opinions and join political parties of their respective choice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".