Why hiring advisers for Cabinet secretaries is a waste of money

In July last year, the government directed all Cabinet secretaries (CSs) to reduce their advisory teams by half, effective immediately.

In a letter dated July 8, 2024, Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service Felix Koskei ordered that each CS retains only one adviser, down from the previous two.

The advice followed weeks of unrest by Generation Z against the Finance Bill 2024 that made the government undertake to reduce the cost of administering public affairs.

The idea of CSs having an officer designated as an adviser is, for seasoned civil servants, wholly new. These cadres of staff were virtually unknown under the presidential system of government. They were unknown throughout the 24 years of President Daniel arap Moi.

Perhaps the only time the country came close to having advisers was in 1999. Then, Moi appointed Richard Leakey to head the civil service among other notable figures from outside the government. Media reports indicated that Moi made the decision under the behest of the World Bank in a bid to improve government performance.

The team of experts led by Dr Leakey came in at the policy-making echelons of the executive branch of the government which Permanent Secretaries (PSs), as the current Principal Secretaries (PSs), were then called.

Unlike today, ministries independence did not have any cadre of staff outside the civil service structure to advise the minister.

Who was discharging the advisory role during this period? Younger Kenyans who came of age yesterday may ask.

The answer is that it was the civil service, headed by the  PS, that advised the minister.

In principle and practice, the civil service, which is composed of personnel with varying expertise, training and experience, does three things. First, it supports the government in developing and implementing ministers’ policies and priorities. It also ensures that once the policies and priorities have been adopted by the government, they are executed efficiently and effectively.

Generally, therefore, the civil service, led by the PS advises on policy and supports CSs. The PSs in various State Departments, have below them a pool of highly educated, trained and experienced staff. They help identify, acknowledge issues, problems, challenges that ought to be addressed to better serve the government of the day in generating or creating policy solutions for discussions at the Cabinet level. The decisions made are in turn communicated to the public and accordingly implemented. The CS takes back the decisions to the PS and his technocrats to implement it.

The CS has only a small fraction of civil servants who actually work in policy roles and support. They are directors of various directorates in the State Department. They in turn have staff who work under them—and are all linked to the delivery points of the services the government renders to the citizens.

In other words, the PS has a whole chain of staff—some at policymaking levels, all the way to the rank-and-file, say, in the education or security sector. The staff have the information or the problems at their fingertips.

The CSs, with the power to change or affirm things, should consult with staff about possible changes prior to decision and implementation.

The technocrats, the career civil servants work the systems and deal with the public. They are best-placed to say what will or won’t work. Not the adviser, however highly educated and rated he or she might be. The danger is that the policy adviser, with little or no experience may have a narrow range of view and evidence. The views or evidence in question may be figments of the imagination of the adviser.

The adviser might give solutions not aligned with the policy ecosystem, lacking critical information that might be borne of experience about the factors around the issue, problem or challenge. The decision that the CS might make will not meet the exigencies of the moment. The decision so made must be communicated not just to the public, but to the staff at the operational delivery area. The adviser doesn’t have the supervision and control of civil servants who work in operational delivery points. It is the top technocrats, who should communicate this. 

There are a number of disadvantages for CSs who overly rely on advisers and alienate seasoned technocrats. First, they only meet them in formal settings and therefore don’t develop the rapport that close interaction ensues when there are no intermediaries. The CS is denied a chance to have a tête-à-tête with seasoned civil servants. It is during these periods when the CS gains valuable insights into the strategic and operational challenges and solutions to policy problems facing the government.

Advisers are important, but only to the Presidency. And they should be advisers who have had practical experience within the civil service. They could make the work of the President very easy.

CSs don’t require advisers. The heads of the directorates in the State Departments are employed to advise them on development of policy and, in turn, manage its implementation.

The CS can have special staff to run their personal affairs. But on their ministerial duties, let the PSs and his staff support him or her in policy formulation. Not advisers.