ADMINISTRATIVE MALPRACTICE: A TREND THAT DISRUPTS GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

It started when I was in high school when a friend was appointed the head boy of his school. He was a close friend, promising and prospering. He told me early that morning, how he had always aspired for a purposeful and acceptable administration in his tenure but by evening, I visited him and he told me he was suspended. Why? Because he failed his duty of care.

What does it take to administer? A lot of us throw dirt at public officers at the detriment of their reputation. Am I saying they do not fail? Of Course not. But we should realise and be exposed to what administration entails, they have to fail sometime but the issue is not reliant on their failures but how they control and make the best of it. My dear friend in the above illustration learned this and was reinstalled in his position as the head boy.

Another close friend was a victim of a protest against the government. He narrated it was against lack of provision of certain essential facilities or amenities. It became violent to the detriment of both the authorities and the people. Mass killings and chaos could not be escaped. We can also see it in a cunning approach to administration.

When we say administrative in express terms, it implies relating to the running of business, organization or public affairs. It is the managerial, directorial or governmental system. However, when we talk of malpractice, it assures of improper, illegal or negligent act or behaviour, a dereliction of duty. In law, malpractice is a misconduct by a professional person; it is the failure to meet a standard of care or standard of conduct that is recognised by a profession and reaches the level of malpractice when a person suffers damage due to error.

Some say it is, ‘Politics’, “Oh see, they have started playing politics”, “Don’t play politics with me”, and so on. The truth is, there is a difference between politics and malpractice or lack of efficiency, negligence or even proper administration. What we call politics in its proper sense should be connoted positively. Politics deals with adequacy in decision making. Although it was not extensively expressed to determine whether it was a positive or negative decision making approach, but in the case where there is a lack in duty or misappropriation or mismanagement, it may be expressed as administrative malpractice.

It has become a trend in our world today to be exposed to different approaches of administrative malpractice. This has led to a rise of inefficiency and lack of adequate attention to the prospect of a particular government in line with his ever smiling manifesto. 

Nevertheless, Wikipedia states that the test for liability in negligence can be found in the case of Anns v Merton which was essentially disapproved in the subsequent case of Caparo Industries v Dickman with an effect that the height of the duty of care or malpractice would adequately result from asking whether it would be “fair, just and reasonable” to impose such liability or burden. To however burden a public authority, a wide range of factors has to be considered including important statues and a wide range of policy factors. The role of justiciability is therefore much less significant, although it can still influence a decision on whether liability is fair, just and reasonable.

Therefore, in administrative malpractice, before a public authority can have the liability, the plaintiff has to look into the cause of action and ensure if it is just, fair and right. What more could be asked for? We all demand justice. But do we ensure we are not doing it for a private interest but for public good. This should be assured to prevent inefficiency of the government. 

Everyone deserves respect notwithstanding its reciprocity. There is no idea as constructive as it is that will not be criticised but if we must criticise, can we ensure we are constructive too?