The Role of Advisors in Public Administration

Public sector management

Allowing advisors to benefit financially or concentrate corporate control through their appointments, despite a pool of qualified individuals, would be suspicious and violate good governance standards

By Prakash Neerohoo

Last week in Parliament, the Prime minister made a statement on the functions of advisors in government. He revealed some very disturbing facts about the functions and privileges (emoluments and fringe benefits) of advisors in government and the broader public sector. With reference to the situation under the previous government, he revealed some dubious practices that involved influence peddling, political patronage, cronyism and waste of public funds.

The PM’s statement gives rise to some crucial questions:

(a) What is the specific role of advisors in the public sector?
(b) Are advisors appointed based on merit (professional qualifications and experience) or according to some other criteria such as party affiliation, personal friendship or family relationship?
(c) Are advisors political staff appointed to implement the ruling party’s program or are they independent experts providing neutral, evidence-based advice to government?

Context

In Mauritius, there is no law that governs the recruitment of advisors in ministries and the broader public sector (parastatal bodies and public enterprises). Advisors are usually selected by ministers or CEOs of public sector organisations, and their conditions of employment are defined in a contract that remains private and confidential. Information about the emoluments of advisors in ministries is only disclosed in Parliament when there is a question from an MP. Government cannot refuse disclosure in this case because the advisors’ emoluments are paid from public funds. However, Parliament does not have access to information on the emoluments of advisors recruited by State-owned enterprises (e.g., SBM, Air Mauritius Ltd.) although they may be political appointees because these corporate entities fall outside parliamentary scrutiny.

Under the previous government, there were four categories of advisors as described by the PM:

(a)       Special Advisors.

(b)       Senior Advisors.

(c)        Advisors on Information Matters.

(d)       Advisors on Public Relations.

The previous government employed a significant number of advisors whose qualifications and experience were kept secret. We don’t know whether they were competent enough for the jobs assigned to them. While some Senior Advisors or Special Advisors were well known for having served successive governments (e.g. Dev Manraj in the Ministry of Finance and Bhinod Bacha in the PMO), others kept a low profile.
In the latter category, we can identify certain individuals with some competence (e.g., economists) who served different Ministers of Finance under successive governments. Their permanency in advisory positions led to conflicting policy advice over the years from one minister to another. For example, they could propose one policy prescription under one minister and reverse it under another minister.
The same economic experts who helped in underestimating public debt and overestimating GDP under the previous government have now revised their estimates under the new government. Is not evidence-based research and policy advice the norm in finance and economics? We would hope so.

Revolving door

When it comes to Information Advisors or Public Relations Advisors, they are clearly political staff, whose role is to disseminate information, develop public relations and promote the minister’s image in the media. Over the years, a revolving door has developed between the media outlets (newspapers and private radios) and the government in power. It has become fashionable for all ministers to appoint a press attaché (Information Advisor) once they assume office and, in most cases, the appointees come from the media. It makes one wonder how independent those political appointees were when they were working in the media.

Why do all ministers need an Information Advisor when there is a department called “Government Information Services” (GIS) whose role is precisely to disseminate information on official ministry activities? Besides, I see the GIS is more active now than under the previous government. By the way, we should note that the online information published by the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) on ongoing enquiries is commendable. It looks objective and fair. I presume it’s all done by regular staff.

In principle, advisors are appointed by government in some ministries to provide advice on specific matters in line with their technical competence and skills. They are subject matter experts and not all-rounders (i.e. a jack of all trades). Therefore, they are expected to hold only one advisory position.

Moonlighting

The Prime Minister revealed that some advisors under the previous government were holding multiple positions. In addition to their “home position” (i.e., where they were initially appointed), they were sitting on multiple boards of public bodies or enterprises covering different economic activities. For example, one Special Advisor earning a basic pay of Rs 162, 250 per month was chairing the boards of multiple corporate bodies, namely the Mauritius Revenue Authority, SBM (Holdings) Ltd, Mauritius Telecom, Multi-Carrier (Mauritius) Ltd and Metro Express Ltd. He also sat on the boards of directors of other corporate entities: SBM Africa Holdings Ltd, SBM Bank (Kenya) Ltd, Mauritius Duty-Free Paradise Co. Ltd, and Rodrigues Duty-Free Paradise Co. Ltd.

The PM mentioned two other cases where one person held multiple positions. Which begs the question: did all those advisors have the technical competence and skills required to understand and manage the files belonging to all those corporations with different missions and activities? What is more disturbing is that those advisors were earning fees (director’s fees or advisor’s fees) from each of the corporations for their services so that their fees for moonlighting exceeded their basic pay.

The logical question that arises is: did those corporations instruct the advisors to report all the fees they collected on their income tax returns together with their basic pay? The government should refer their names to the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA) for an enquiry on tax compliance to detect any possible tax avoidance or evasion. Their basic pay as we know is subject to PAYE deductions. The reporting of director’s fees is a voluntary tax compliance obligation. It is also necessary for the FCC to look at the declaration of assets filed by senior public officers under section 8 of the Declaration of Assets Act 2018 at every interval of five years from 2014 to 2024.

Equal opportunity

The appointment of one advisor to multiple positions goes against the principle of equal opportunity for all. If one person is holding five advisory positions in addition to their home position, it’s five opportunities denied to other people who may be competent to assume those jobs. The country has no shortage of qualified people to assume higher responsibilities. If the intent was to allow those advisors to make more money than they were getting from one job, it would sound very suspicious. If they were trusted by the powers that be to control so many corporate bodies, it would show a concentration of powers in the hands of one person that is contrary to good governance standards, namely the requirement of having different office bearers in different positions to avoid conflicts of interest.

The present government has promised not to allow this practice of moonlighting to continue except in rare cases where it wants to exercise close monitoring of activities. It is critical that two strategic positions in different organisations are not held by the same person to provide them with different perspectives in management. For instance, I don’t understand why the governor of the Bank of Mauritius should chair the Financial Services Commission (FSC) when they are two bodies with different missions. The BOM and FSC should operate independently from each other, as is the case in other countries, to avoid conflicts of interest. There is no lack of financial experts in Mauritius to manage the FSC.

Separation of powers

A parliamentary democracy is based on the separation of powers between institutions and the clear delimitation of roles and responsibilities for each institution in line with its statutory mandate. When these boundaries are blurred, we get into conflicts of interests such as the one where the Bank of Mauritius set up a subsidiary (Mauritius Investment Corporation) to lend money to or invest in private companies under the political directives of a government, regardless of corporate credit worthiness or economic viability.

In a functioning parliamentary democracy, there should be a clear line of demarcation between political staff (advisors) and civil servants. The former cannot give instructions to the latter. Civil servants are accountable to their heads of department who answer to elected ministers. Unelected advisors cannot call the shots behind the scenes. It is a travesty of democracy to allow a few political nominees give instructions to civil servants and even ministers in the name of a higher authority. That’s what the previous government did by surrendering power to unelected people and it was rightly kicked out.

In some Anglo-Saxon countries, there are clear guidelines to delimit the roles and responsibilities of political staff (hired by a political party) as opposed to those of permanent civil servants (hired under a Public Service Employment Act).
Political staff, also known as ministerial staff, play a crucial role in supporting elected officials, particularly ministers, in their duties. They provide a partisan perspective, sometimes acting as a bridge between the political and administrative arms of government. This includes tasks like crafting communications, managing relationships with various external stakeholders, and offering political advice on policy matters.
While political staff play a vital role, they are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the civil service and cannot direct civil servants. They are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines and avoid partisan activities that could impair the integrity of their office.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 4 July 2025