All over the world, the use of reward system and recognition as a way of motivation, appreciation of excellence and hardwork, innovation and dedication to service have been generally acceptable as veritable means of celebrating worthy sons and daughters of a nation.I am sure that would have been the thoughts of our founding fathers, who in 1964, established the National Honours Award. The novel idea has no doubt afforded outstanding, deserving Nigerians and friends of the nation to be duly appreciated.Lately, going by the controversies that have trailed the awards, critics have called for outright cancellation, reform or overhaul of the concept. The argument has been that people of questionable characters have now dominated the list of awardees receiving what is supposed to be a national pride, making prominent Nigerians to turn down the offers, simply because they have disagreed with the parameter used in the selection, as well as the pedigree of some beneficiaries.The late human rights activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, turned down the offer of the award of the Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR); the renowned Virologist, Professor Tam David-West declined the award of the Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON); Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, also rejected the OFR award while the literary guru, Professor Chinua Achebe, turned down the OFR and CON awards in 2004 and 2011, respectively.Rejection of national awards is not new or peculiar to Nigeria alone. It even becomes honourable if the rejection bothers on morality, principle, integrity, equity, rule of law and fairplay. For instance, in 1960, a Tamil national, Padma Shri, declined the Indian honour because the invitation sent to him by the government was allegedly written in the Devanagri script, which he refused to accept, being Malayali-born.There is really nothing absurd about the awards but as we all know, nothing works normally in Nigeria. If care is not taken, the essence of instituting this historic event may have been lost and turned into mere jamboree, serving as an opportunity to reward political and business loyalists. In this sense, it becomes a waste of resources and unproductive venture.As observed by Richard Pascal and Anthony Athos, in 'The Art of Japanese Management', three forms of reward exist in most companies ' remuneration, promotion and recognition. Of the three, the first two are less flexible than the third in the everyday scheme of things. Therefore, the rationale behind the awards is noble. The problem is the process and the quality of recipient.To regain the lost glory of the award, a number of things should be ironed-out. First, selection of qualified prospective should not be the sole responsibility of government. As practised in other climes, respectable personalities from the government, media, civil rights group, religious organisations, academia and industry should carefully be appointed to handle the nomination.It is instructive to note that the United Kingdom Nomination Committees are now chaired by independent and eminent people from outside of government, who have experience in various fields. Majority of members are not civil servants but professionals in relevant fields, appropriate to the honours involved.Transparency in the selection process should be entrenched. As it is presently obtainable, the various stages of nomination to screening (if any) and finally, to pronouncement are shrouded in secrecy. This makes it easy for manipulation. It is a known fact that whenever a selection process is made transparent, the citizens are given ample opportunities to make inputs and ensure that outputs from such sensitive national exercise are thorough.The cost of hosting the award could be trimmed to correct the impression that conferment of the award is wasteful and a drain pipe to the nation's economy. Professor David-West had once decried that the huge allocation to the awards amounted to 'a waste of resources'.What has now turned into an annual ritual may be a national burden, which is avoidable. If necessary, the awards may not be held on an annual basis, as presently obtainable as this will help to save cost and guarantee that only the best and eligible candidates are selected and picked. Afterall, www.nigerianheroes.org, reported that, at least, one award was conferred in 1970. So, it is not a matter of quantity but of quality!To buttress this, the last award was marred by a shortage of medals and certificates. A total of 335 Nigerians received the awards this year alone, bringing the number of awardees to 3,924, from its inception, to date.Perhaps, the easiest way to do this is to reduce the bureaucracies involved and reduced bloated expenses. The government should realise that what makes the award unique and worthy is not the social glamour of the investiture itself, but the prestige to the awardees that a nation, symbolised by its President is bestowing an award on its deserving hero or heroine.The Federal Government should also review the award ratio. Presently, public officers and politicians constitute over 85 percent of the awardees at the expense of other sectors of national life, translating to less than 15 percent of the recipients, from the private sector, including traditional rulers, religious leaders and artisans.This trend makes the people to ask the question: Are government officials the critical mass that contribute more to nation-building' I don't think so. Hence, Mr. President should remember that the National Honours Act No. 5 of 1964 empowers him to honour deserving citizens 'who have contributed to the development and progress of the country in any field of human endeavour'. Nigerians will be excited to see more of eligible poor and the not-too-important people being recognised by their nation.Another area the federal government should seriously look into is the institution of punitive mechanism. That is, anyone found to have been given the award either erroneously, or has been found to have been involved in acts that are detrimental to good morality, after bagging the award, should be stripped of the title.Let's quickly consider the British and Jamaica models for possible adoption. The UK Honours Forfeiture Committee exists to consider cases where an individual's actions merit continued privileges. Through genuine correspondences to the Committee, a recipient could lose a title if he/she has been found guilty by courts of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three months.Also, any recipient could be culpable if he/she has been censured/struck-off by relevant regulatory authority and professional body for actions or failures to act, which are directly or indirectly relevant to the granting of the honour.In Jamaica, nominees undergo stringent process as they are first cleared by the Legislature before crossing the hurdle, as stipulated by the country's National Honours and Award Act of July 18, 1969. The Act reads in part, 'no regulations shall be made under this section unless the draft thereof has been laid before the Senate and the House of Representatives and approved by a resolution of each house'.Here, the reverse is the case. While a reasonable number of past recipients could be said to have merited the honour, not a few have been widely known to have contributed to the woes of the nation. Are we now celebrating mediocrity' I have never heard of anyone being stripped of his or her award after being indicted for corruption or criminal acts. While declining the OFR award, Gbajabiamila had admitted that 'year-in-year-out, we have had many rotten eggs on our honours list. This has reduced what otherwise was a well-intended and noble idea to a national joke'.Beneficiaries of the largesse, under the aegis of the Association of National Honours Awardees (ANHA) feel otherwise. On its website, ANHA insists that recipients are 'made up of citizens of Nigeria who have, through dint of hard work, contributed to the development and progress of the nation'. Really'But thank God, President Goodluck Jonathan has admitted that the selection process is flawed. That may be the beginning of the change we are talking about. Until the appropriate measures are put in place, wrong persons will continue to be at vantage positions to receive what is meant to be a national pride. This is a challenge that must be squarely tackled. Kupoluyi wrote in from the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State, via adewalekupoluyi@yahoo.co.uk
Click here to read full news..
