Review Article: 2021 Vol: 25 Issue: 4S
France Khutso Lavhelani Kgobe, University of Limpopo
John Mamokhere, University of Limpopo
Good Governance, Public Accountability, Stewardship, South Africa.
The central purpose of this article is to interrogate the effectiveness of public accountability mechanism in South Africa. The public accountability measures or mechanisms intend to hold the ruling government and public officials accountable for their actions. However, South Africa is perceived to be a country that is characterized by a lack of good governance which tampers with the rendering of public services. Since the dawn of democracy, many unethical public officials and office-bearers are left without justice taking place. There is a lack of impartiality and independence of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the recommendatory function played by the Public Service Commission (PSC) which its recommendations are not binding nor enforceable. For instance, in the 21st century and COVID-19 pandemic, we as the public have witnessed several accountability efforts from public officials and political office-bearers like from the Minister of Health, while at the same time, we witnessed the refusal to account and undermining of the constitution by the former president of South Africa, Mr Jacob Zuma. This has been contemporary debates by scholars, practitioners, legal experts and civil society organizations to question if good governance will ever be realized in South Africa or is just a taboo. The article is underpinned by the stewardship theory initiated by Donaldson & Davis (1991 & 1993). The theoretical argument is based on the implementation of good corporate governance practices in many instances. Thus, to realize the aim of this article, the author(s) benefited from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of secondary data covering good governance and public accountability mechanisms. The article reveals that the current public accountability mechanisms which aim to realize good governance are not efficient and effective enough. The article recommends that all legislative frameworks concerning public accountability should be revised. Further recommends that the recommendations of the public service commission should be binding and enforceable.
Change of governance is towards an increasingly participatory and equitable model with the goal that the public can request accountability where none is anticipated (Kim, 2003; Olum 2014). Improving accountability in the public sphere is essential to the improvement of public services (Said, Alam & Aziz, 2015). Although the pith of good governance, or even basically governance, stays not well characterized (Mills & Serageldin, 1991; Olum 2014). Diale, Maserumule & Mello, (2007) deplored that issues that support accountability have been agreed with the explanatory all-important focal point. The primary concern is natives need confirmation that their tax is by and large all around oversaw and that limited assets are being used in the individuals' wellbeing (Olum, 2014). In South Africa, governance is a theme of incredible national intrigue and was the subject of the supposed King Reports I, II and III (Louw, 2012). Public accountability is basic to governance due to the requirement for reasonable and full bookkeeping from auditors. The interest by people in general for more prominent accountability turns out to be much progressively pressing as corruption remains settled (Olum, 2014). Accountability and political order over the last decades, there has been an increasing demand for making governments and the public officials accountable, and radical reforms have been advocated for (Olsen, 2016).
From the South African perspective, (Munzhedzi, 2016) opined that public accountability is a constitutional prerequisite in all three spheres of government. The prerequisite is mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which is the supreme law of the country. All spheres of government are entrusted with the constitutional mandates one been the provision of public services and ultimately accountable for rendered public services to comprehend all the expenditures and incomes associated with the procurement of that services. Therefore, Kim, (2003) posit that the citizens can at any time request the public representatives to account for their conduct in rendering certain service. For instance, through the media platforms, we have witnessed the growing public accountability from the Minister of Health, Dr Zweli Mkhize in the procurement of COVID-19 pandemic vaccines and update on the COVID-19 pandemic statistics. While at the same time, there is a decline in accountability. We noticed the refusal to account for and undermining of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa by the former president of South Africa, Mr Jacob Zuma. However, one should admit that the South African public sector still faces numerous challenges of public accountability and corruption in the 27 years of a democratic government. These challenges are mainly found in the local sphere of government which is the closest sphere that should account to the general public. Thus, this article will mainly interrogate the effectiveness of public accountability mechanisms using South Africa as a case study. Moreover, the article will further be guided by the following objects; to explore the complexities of governance and to determine who are responsible/accountable.
Statement of the Problem
In social science research, a unit of examination, utilizing Mouton's, (2002) words, is the "what of the investigation" or that which is contemplated (Maserumule, 2005). That which is analyzed or examined in this article is public accountability mechanisms and good governance. The study by McEwan, (2003) argues about the continuous political changes in South Africa with regards to banters about good governance and public accountability measures. Fundamentally, public accountability stresses and endeavours to battle unethical conduct since it is one of the most exceedingly terrible adversaries of development. Therefore, the abuse of public office for private increase portends sick for accountability and good governance (Olum, 2014). Accountability is constantly identified with good governance (Said, Alam & Aziz, 2015). Ubisi, (2018) opine that public Accountability is one of these basic values and principles provided by section 195 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Also, section 152 of the Constitution requires public officials and political office-bearers to be accountable for allocated budgets, programmes, projects and other public functions to legislatures and in the execution of their public roles and responsibilities. Ubisi, (2018) further posit that lack of public accountability which hampers service delivery in South Africa. With all been said, Mamokhere, Musitha & Netshidzivhani (2021), similarly indicates that accountability ought to be implemented within the parameter of the law, thus politicians ought to be accountable to legislatures and the administrators should be accountable to the general public since they serve the public and paid from taxpayers’ pockets. All stakeholders in governance, namely, government, private sector, and civil society, are accountable to the public for their actions. Public officials and other stakeholders should be accountable to the public freely and voluntarily but also bearing in mind the constitutional requirement. Thus, this article mainly interrogates the effectiveness of the current public accountability mechanisms.
Governance
Kaufmann, Daniel & Pablo, (1999) described governance as "traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good". This includes the process by which governments are selected and replaced; the capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies effectively; the respect of citizens for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. According to Hirst & Thompson, (1996), governance is the act or manner of governing, of exercising control or authority over the actions of the subject, a system of regulations". FitzGerald, Cosgrove, Ronner, Jiang, Buchbinder, Belliveau, Rosen & Benson, (1997) amplified this definition by describing governance as "working & listening to citizens to manage the public's resources and respond to the needs and expectations of citizens as individuals, interest groups, and society as a whole". Governance includes active cooperation and engagement in policy processes among all stakeholders, including citizens. An associated term, as described by Reddy & Clarke, (2000), is "people-centred governance" which can be characterized as partnerships between government and society in which consultation is a key issue.
Good Governance
Charlick, (1992) & Mamokhere, (2020) indicate that good governance is the effective administration of public businesses over the generation of a regime that sets rules, accepted as legitimate for encouraging and improving societal values required by individuals and groups. According to Mamokhere, (2018), good governance is clarified as “a process of decision-making at both political and administrative level of government to implement the policies that will improve the quality of life for all members of the community and to improve service delivery. Good governance is about ensuring transparency, fairness, and equity, effective accountability, responsiveness and public participation”.
Public Accountability
Scholars in the field of public administration have bantered for over a decade on the term public accountability and a thorough definition is yet to develop (Steffek, 2010; Valentinov, 2011; Said, Alam & Aziz, 2015). In any case, accountability is constantly identified with great administration which suggests that public participation should direct public issues, oversee public assets and assurance that human rights are free from maltreatment and defilement while complying with the standard of law (Bhuiyan & Amagoh, 2011; Morrell, 2009; UNHR., 2012; Said, Alam & Aziz, 2015). Accountability is imperative to show justly how government behaviours observing and control while avoiding centralization of intensity and improving the learning limit and viability of public administration (Aucoin & Heintzman, 2000; Peters and Pierre, 1998; Rotberg, 2004; Said et al., 2015). Accountability alludes to a commitment to uncover, clarify and legitimize activities (Van der Nest et al., 2008).
It requests that the activities of public institutions be broadcasted to empower public discussion and analysis (Kuye & Mafunisa, 2003; Mafunisa, 2003; Vyas-Doorgapersad & Ababio, 2006); Ubisi, (2018), clarify that public accountability “is to openly take responsibility for their actions, accept consequences, learn and improve from them”. Public accountability as a constitutional mandate is one of the mechanisms that promote good governance globally. While, Mamokhere, (2020), similarly indicates that “public accountability is a key cornerstone of good governance. Therefore, it can further be clarified that public accountability is an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility”. Public accountability is regularly equal in that it begins the minute one expects powers or starts practising a vested position to use public assets (Minnaar, 2010; Mulgan, 2003; Munzhedzi, 2016a). Public accountability and transparency involve the commitment to uncover exercises and after-effects of such exercises and to clarify and legitimize them out in the public (Nzimakwe, 2014). By the way, public accountability is a fulcrum because it is about the legitimateness and institutionalized practices of record giving (Bovens et al., 2005; Olum, 2014).
Theoretical Framework on Good Governance and Public Accountability
The article is premised on the bases of stewardship theory as a way of showing an argument. The term ‘stewardship’ has gained currency in a wide range of policy debates over the appropriate roles and responsibilities of industry, government, and citizens in various economic and environmental governance processes (Saner & Wilson, 2003). As a criticism of the postulated selfishness and shirking of agents in much of the literature, which in the public sector may be a “terrible caricature” (Kelman, 1987; Maggetti & Papadopoulos, 2016; Pierre & Peters, 2017; Schillemans & Bjurstrøm, 2019). Stewardship is an "obligation to provide services effectively and efficiently that meet the needs of the citizens [clients] of the South African public service institutions without exception" (Nzimakwe & Mpehle, 2012; Motubatse, Ngwakwe & Sebola, 2017). Stewardship theory also analyses how to ensure accountability when a task is delegated from a principal to an executive (Schillemans & Bjurstrøm, 2019). The implementation of good governance practices in many instances evolved from an organization's effectiveness when promoting and practising accountability (Zadek & Radovich, 2006; Van den Berghe 2009; Bekiris 2013; Andersen 2015; Motubatse et al., 2017). Hence, politicians and government administrators are alike entrusted with the care of the nation’s resources placed under their control during their tenure of office (Motubatse et al, 2017) are of the view that good stewardship is best demonstrated through responsibility in the management of public resources. The governance of public sector agencies has been studied through a variety of those lenses (Schillemans & Bjurstrøm, 2019). It is, therefore, germane to review the concept of governance and public accountability in the following section.
Critical Analysis of Related Literature
This section analyzes the existing literature that is related to good governance and public accountability.
Complexities of Governance
The concept and practice of governance are deeply complex, especially in their contexts of power relations, interactions of actors, access to decision-making, planning, and control over public institutions (Tsheola, 2017). The governance aspects of public sector institutions are not sufficiently understood to be able to address their effectiveness issues (Motubatse et al., 2018). Arguably, Tsheola (2017) purported that interactions of the party-state-society triad have bedevilled South Africa's democratization and development in a variety of specific ways. South Africa's current and ongoing development challenges, inclusive of economic, social, political and physical infrastructure, are vested in the dearth of formal governance that could give pragmatic effect to the myriad of planning (Tsheola, 2017). Sometimes those who have just been given the responsibility of government through elections and appointments tend to be authoritarian in the leadership styles that they present and thus creating a good governance poser for the public service (Matshabaphala, 2014). Some politicians and officials think that they know what the communities and those who report to them need (Matshabaphala, 2014).
Administrators who are public servants in nature have surely contributed to causing problems of poor governance as they incubate bad politics (Basheka & Sebola, 2015). Elected representatives are made to account for their actions through elections where those that did not meet the citizen's social contract are removed (Basheka & Sebola, 2015). Bad administrators are appointed by politicians and bad politicians are put into office by the administrator. (Basheka & Sebola, 2015), further argued that the two knowingly or unknowingly have historically worked together to destroy the African society. The formulation of policies is clear, and the implementation is expected, in between these (the makers, the implementers, and adjudicators) each would like to twist policy benefits against the primary intended purpose thereby compromising good governance (Sebola, 2014). The makers of the law and the implementers would dodge the truth and resort to political lies to protect mischief in government without considering their integrity (Sebola, 2014). Proponents of governance rightly show that bad governance, as the antithesis of “good governance” is on the one hand characterized by corruption, unaccountability and being unresponsiveness to citizens’ needs (Sebola, Tsheola & Molopa, 2014; Sebola, 2014). South Africa's ongoing crises of governance could as well be traced back to the unfettered endeavour to emulate the Western philosophies without formulating them with Africanism or Africanist characteristics (Sebola & Tsheola, 2017). In South Africa, the tendency is to employ public servants without delving deeply enough into their ability to perform (Koenane & Mangena, 2017).
Who is Accountable and to Who?
Human rights advocates look at it mainly in terms of popular participation in and regulation of political decision-making (Dowdle, 2017). At its empathy, the notion of public accountability appears to articulate a belief that people with public responsibilities should be accountable to 'the people for the execution of their duties (Ferry & Eckersley, 2015). The latter clearly shows that citizens do have a role to play in ensuring public accountability and good governance, due to the mere fact that the government is financed from the public purse which at the initial stage the citizens are the ones financing the government through tax. Most citizens do not have the skills, time, or energy to evaluate data about public institutions, with the result "that transparency provides users with the illusion of openness while serving to obfuscate (Ferry & Eckersley, 2015). Engaging citizens in holding public officials and service suppliers accountable, referred to as social accountability, is a popular solution for public service performance vulnerabilities (Brinkerhoff & Wetterberg, 2016). The citizen can report unethical behavior of public servants and politicians to the office of the public protector.
Several issues arose in the South African media atmosphere since the advent of democracy (Wasserman & De Beer, 2005). The code of ethics and conduct for South African Print and Online media, intends that the media exist to serves the society concerning the article it enables the citizens to make informed judgments on the issues of the day (Council, 2016). At some, the South African media house is captured and lack a sense of impartiality. The media have had a positive impact on democratization in Africa as conduits for political education, watchdogs of political accountability and forums for civic engagement (Tettey, 2006). There are some issues regarding accountability that the media house does not share with the citizens most especially when they involve well connected political elites. The watchdog role of the media concept explains the media roles in informing the public about the ongoing activities of public institutions (Maswanganyi, 2017), this involves alerting society whenever something irregular occurs in public institutions…Therefore, the public ensures that those who are responsible for any irregular account to the public. In light of the above question "who is accountable and to who"? the implication behind this is that the public officials and political office-bearers who are entrusted with public resources and offices should be accountable to the public. Why to the public, this is because the public are taxpayers and public officials receive salaries from taxpayer’s money. However, the next section focus on mechanisms that are put in place to ensure those who are accountable do so.
Mechanisms of Facilitating Public Accountability in the South African Context
This section explores different mechanisms that facilitating public accountability. The following themes are discussed namely; Public Service Commission (PSC), Office of the Auditor-General (AG), Public Protector (PP), National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and Mass Media.
Public Service Commission
The Public Service Commission (PSC) is a chapter 10 institution established in terms of Section 196 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. As such the PSC is mandated and empowered to perform amongst other functions; investigate, monitor, and evaluate the organization and administration of the Public Services (Public Service Commission, 2018). In South Africa, the PSC is constitutionally mandated to promote and maintain high standards of professional ethics through the provision of guidelines of developed code of ethics and conducting ethical workshops and training for all national and provincial public officials (Public Service Commission, 2002:4; Sebola, 2018). This mandate also entails the evaluation of achievements, or lack thereof of government programs (Public service commission, 2018). The function of the PSC in public service ethical promotion has been challenged in many scholarship writings (Ruhinga, 2009; Sebola, 2012 & 2018).
Subsequently, the PSC oversees public administration and its custodial responsibility for good governance in the country (Thakathi, 2014; Shabangu & Mazdzivhandila, 2017). Sebola, (2018), argues that the debacle has continuously been noted that the Commission plays a recommendatory function rather than an enforceable one, then restraining its efficacy in ethical submission by public officials. Yearly, the PSC publishes a report to designate how the state was able to implement policies through transformation and the enforcing of good governance principles and how each ministry responsible for public services is managing its resources (Shabangu & Mazdzivhandila, 2017). Again, Public Service Commission assesses, monitors and evaluates state policies, practices, compliance, and control as well as the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies (Pillay, 2017). According to the United Nations (2001 & Sebola, 2015), PSC plays a leading role in the building of ethical public services in South Africa. However, based on the arguments above, the author(s) further argue that though PSC is established on the basis of independence and impartiality. Some of the established public service commissions like the Zondo Commission of Inquiry etc. are somehow influenced for political battle. However, we have also witnessed the intensifying accountability facilitated by the PSC, though, other individuals undermine the commission functions and recommendations.
Office of the Auditor-General (AG)
Office of the Auditor-General is one of the independent Chapter 9 institutions established in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The institution aims to facilitate or enforce public accountability in the using of public resources. According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, section 188 (1) the functions of the Office of the Auditor General first is to audit and report on the accounts, financial statements and financial management of the following remarkably:
a) All national and provincial state departments and administrations.
b) All municipalities; and
c) Any other institution or accounting entity required by national or provincial legislation to be audited by the Auditor-General.
Therefore, the office of the Auditor-General is a viable institution to enhance public accountability and a strong deterrent unaccountable tendency (Mashamaite, 2013; Mathiba, 2020). The role of the Office of the Auditor-General is, however, very significant in ensuring good fiscal management and ethics (Sebola, 2015). Though, the Office of the Auditor-General is more concerned with financial and performance accountability (Mathiba, 2020). Arguably, clean audits are an essential concept envisioned to promote accountability in the country's public sector institutions (Motubatse, Ngwakwe & Sebola, 2018). According to the Amendment of section 5 paragraph (b)(1b) of Public Audit Amendment Act, 2018, the AG has the power to (a) take any appropriate remedial action; and (b) issue a certificate of debt, as prescribed, where an accounting officer or accounting authority has failed to comply with remedial action. The current amendment of the public audit strengthened the potency of the Office of the Auditor-General in enforcing public and fighting unethical conduct in the public finances' utilization. Therefore, the above amendment section imposes how AG plays its constitutional role ad responsivities to enforce public accountability and ultimately encourage good governance in the public institution.
Public Protector (PP)
Constitutionally the Public Protector’s Office was established by an act of parliament in South Africa (Sebola, 2015). The office receives and investigates complaints from members of the public against agencies and officials and has the power to investigate and recommend corrective measures (South Africa Info, 2010; Sebola, 2015). Sebola, (2015), lamented that in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 the functions of the PP are inter alia; investigate any conduct in state affairs or the public administration in any sphere of government that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in impropriety or prejudice; to report on that conduct and to take appropriate remedial conduct. From the complaints received from the public and investigated, the Public Protector then hold public officials or political office-bearers accountable for the allegation.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
According to Sebola, (2015), organisationally, the National Prosecuting Authority office comprises of the National Director (ND) who is the head of the prosecuting authority and is appointed by the President of the state, as head of the national executive and Directors of Public Prosecutions and prosecutors as determined by an act of parliament. The prosecuting authority has the power to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state and to carry out any necessary functions incidental to instituting criminal proceedings (Sebola, 2015). One of the most significant democratic principles regarding the independence of the office of the prosecuting authority is to implement the national legislation without fear, favour or prejudice (Sebola, 2015). However, the office of the NPA is often linked with controversies and cases of impartiality which often bring the credibility of the office into question (Munzhedzi, 2016a). As such Sebola, (2015), further lamented that the political nature of the office may necessarily ensure the independence of the office. The independence of the NPA thus does not appear adequately to have been secured in the democratic era (Redpath, 2012). Very often, the NPA is associated with a lack of independence against the connected political elite (Munzhedzi, 2016a). However, one ought to bear in mind that even though there are discrepancies associated with the NPA, the main aim of the institution is to enforce public accountability by putting alleged individuals upfront to account for their actions.
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA)
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) is established to conduct oversight and hold the executive accountable for their action when spending public funds (Makhado, 2016). It seeks to ensure accountability for resources and financial management per the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999, as amended (Daniels, 2019). The intention for the SCOPA, when executing its function, is to ensure that there is an effective, efficient and economical use of public funds (Makhado, 2016). It Promotes transparency and accountability in the use of public resources; ensure that public funds are spent to benefit the public; and ensure that quality service is delivered to the public (Makhado, 2016). In light of all the role and responsibilities that SCOPA play, (Matebese-Notshulwana, 2019) indicates that South Africa is still struggling with measures to counter corruption and the abuse of power. "South Africa has instituted and inaugurated many critical institutional mechanisms for legislative oversight". However, Matebese-Notshulwana, (2019) further opines that rampant problems of non-compliance, unaccountability and lack of answerability within South Africa's public sector still persist. Matebese-Notshulwana, (2019) concludes that this conduct of unaccountability or lack of answerability and abuse of office power has serious consequences for the future of the country and the realization of good governance practice. Thus, the role and function of SCOPA as a key parliamentary tool should seek to advance public accountability.
Mass Media
Globally, mass media has become a powerful weapon to hold public officials accountable for office conduct. Therefore, mass media can be considered as one of the mechanisms of public accountability. Many scholars like Chiyamwaka, (2009); Ashraf, (2014) & Mlambo, Zubane & Mlambo, (2019) conducted their studies around the role of media and its influence or power on good governance. Therefore, Mlambo, et al, (2019) cited in Mamokhere, (2020) indicate that in this new dispensation, mass media are becoming a broadly used tool to hold the governing bodies accountable worldwide including in South Africa. Moreover, the mass media can function as both catalysts for democracy and an instrument of democratic rule that makes the monitoring and evaluating of good governance by ensuring transparency, accountability and other basic principles. Through its function, the media expose the abuse of power and ultimately hold public officials accountable for their actions.
Similary Ashraf, (2014) opines that the mass media is utilized to hold the government and government officials accountable. The mass media exposes what the public officials and governments are doing so that the public or people can judge. Through this function, the new media helps to ensure good governance in a democratic system. However, even though, the mass media function to facilitate public accountability, there are still challenges associated with their role. According to Mamokhere, (2020) indicates that “Yes” the media function as a catalyst for strengthening good governance and fostering public accountability, there are many challenges to deal with to ensure that mass media function smoothly without fear and favour. Not only is Mamokhere who judges the media’s conduct. Also, established scholars like Chiyamwaka, (2009) also questions the role of the mass media if are political players or honest independent brokers. The bottom line is the media role has become complex, bias and deceiving. (Dikotla & Mahlatji, 2020). Their conduct is threats to the growing democracy and affects the realization of good governance in South Africa. Why is that, this is because media opinions matter most in the public eyes, therefore, there is a need for radical transformation.
The Status Quo of Public Accountability Measures in the South African Context
The endemic government administration issues experienced since the advent of democracy show the consistent malfunctioning status of South African government departments and municipalities. There are poor public funds usage and poor political leadership (Madumo & Koma, 2019). As of now, the nation has four commissions in administration matters to be specific: Commission of Inquiry into State capture; the commission of Inquiry into tax administration and governance in the South African Revenue Services; The commission of inquiry into Public Investment Cooperation and in lastly the Commission of Inquiry into the National Prosecuting Agency (De Villiers, 2018). Other than the absence of an ability to convey required services, the absence of strong financial related control frameworks and absence of political security, probably the greatest test confronting South African local government especially municipalities are debasement and maladministration (Thornhill, 2006; Munzhedzi, 2016). Madumo, (2012); Munzhedzi, (2016b) agree that debasement and maladministration exist in every sphere of government but more specifically in the local government.
On the other hand, this is likewise connected with the appointment of a senior administrative workforce in public office, which is frequently impacted by the political alliance with a specific ruling party in government (Reddy, Naidoo & Pillay, 2005; Munzhedzi, 2016). Corruption is not sufficiently tended to; in this way, it will decimate the public services conveyance capacity as it makes an enormous scratch in the public purse (Munzhedzi, 2016). Political portrayal through decisions comprises the main conventional component of responsibility in neo-patrimonial frameworks since different roads of formal responsibility, for example, the standard of law, are seriously disintegrated (Mkandawire, 2013; Duthie 2015; Masenya, 2017). Public Accountability measures are a greater amount of compromise more than serving equity subsequently Public service commission assumes a recommender role that is not authoritative.
Research Design
There is no research study that can take place without the research design. Research designs are imperative for the undertaking of any study. Kumar, (2011) considers research designs as a procedural plan that academic scholars adopt in answering research questions. As for Pandey & Pandey, (2015), they are the frameworks of the study that are utilized for the processes of collecting and analyzing the data. Qualitative methods provide results that are generally rich and detailed, offering ideas and concepts to inform your research. MacDonald & Headlam, (2014) posit that it has the potential to reveal the feeling of the people and also how they think without providing a numerical of the target population that feel or think that way. The research methodology, which was adopted for this study is qualitative. Thus, a qualitative design will be briefly discussed below;
Qualitative Design
Bryman, (2020) indicates that qualitative research is a collection of social data that focuses on meaning thus providing valuable insights into the local perspectives of study populations. They can contribute to culturally specific and contextually rich data (Mack, et al. 2005). In the qualitative study, the researcher relies on the principles from interpretive or critical social science emphasis on the language of "cases and contexts" and of cultural meaning (Neuman, 2014). A qualitative study is underpinned by the logic that arises from ongoing practice while following a nonlinear research path (Neuman, 2014). The existing literature was systematically reviewed and synthesized. This process involved the review of peer-reviewed journal papers, books, government legislations, and internet sources. Similarly, to attain the aims of this paper, the author adopted a qualitative research approach whereby secondary data has been utilized. Therefore, the paper drew information from published articles, reports, newspapers, books and other readily available materials.
It can be deduced from the public administration literature perused that society must start to be awake on matters that are about the governance of public institutions. Strong public accountability mechanisms and good governance practices are sines qua non for effective, efficient and economic service delivery. Legislative frameworks need to be revised so that the country can have good governance. The conduct of public servants needs to be closely monitored and any irregular conducts of the person responsible for such should be brought to the rule of law without fear or favour and impartiality should be at the center of institutions dealing precisely with unethical conducts. The article recommends that the recommendations of the PSC should be binding and enforceable. A quest for good governance and strong public accountability is a sine qua non for good service delivery and it will also address dire challenges in the public sector of unethical conduct.