The Chairperson should exercise full authority within the Commission as the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer;
There should be a compulsory induction for all Members and Staff of the Commission that clearly defines the modus operandi and code of conduct of the Commission;
All members of the Commission should be required to acquaint themselves with the Statutes of the Commission and the Rules of Procedure of other Organs;
The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson should be men and/or women with a known vision of and commitment to pan-Africanism and continental integration. They must have experience in governance. Their election should be unrelated to their regions;
The election of the Commissioners should focus more on core competencies. Each region will provide at least two, but preferably more candidates for election;
The election of the Commissioners should be de-linked from the portfolios that they will occupy. The responsibility for assigning portfolios, monitoring and managing the performance of the Commissioners should be assumed by the Chairperson in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission;
The portfolios of the Departments should be rationalised by the Chairperson of the Commission in consultation with the Chairperson of the Assembly and in accordance with the agreed strategies and priorities of the Union;
The tenure of office for the elected posts should remain four years. For the purpose of the impending election, and in order to avoid the problems of simultaneous elections of all members of the Commission, the elections of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson should take place six months prior to the elections of the Commissioners. For subsequent elections, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson should be elected one year before the election of the Commissioners; and,
In the light of the above recommendations and in view of the special circumstances prevailing, it is imperative that the Assembly should adopt modalities for the election of the next Commissioners.
Overview of Management in the Commission
The Panel finds that inadequate in-house leadership and weak management systems have resulted in poor supervision in the Commission, within and between departments, and low morale among staff. Few Commissioners and Directors can claim to have had a respectful and productive relationship. By October 2007, five of the thirteen Directors appointed in July 2004 had left the Commission. Further, the lack of supervision stems from the regular absence of Commissioners. It is easy to put this down to the personalities and level of professionalism of either the Commissioners or the Directors but the problems are more systemic.
There has been a failure to articulate and accept a chain of command in the Commission. There is insufficient clarity on authorisation levels, the exercise of power and its delegation. Poor to non-existent internal communication strategies and ineffective accountability mechanisms are central to the disempowerment of and demoralisation among staff.
Evidence of this situation can be found in some cases of Directors being sidelined in favour of other professional staff because of their alleged incompetence and lack of commitment coupled with the failure of some Commissioners to adequately delegate to their Directors when away on travel. Most mid-level staff rarely receive mission reports from Commissioners and Directors and, therefore, find it difficult to follow up on these missions. A number of mid-level staff complained of the disempowering practice of Directors requesting inputs to departmental strategies, work plans and reports and then not receiving feedback. These are clear signs of an unhealthy organisational culture. Unless checked, the departments will continue to work in silos, producing gaps, overlaps and a fragmented institution. The Panel’s attention has also been drawn to the fact that often no reports are filed following official missions undertaken by Commissioners themselves.
According to records of meetings of the Commission availed to the Panel, the first meeting of the Commissioners took place on September 8, 2005, two years after they had assumed office in September 2003. At that meeting, it was agreed that they would meet weekly. The Commissioners met nine times from September to December 2005, seventeen times in 2006 and only ten times between January and October 2007. That is, a total of 37 meetings of the Commissioners took place over a period of 138 working weeks, an average of one meeting every three weeks between 2005-2007, as against their own decision to hold weekly meetings.
The Panel noted that the Secretary to the Commission invariably set the agenda in the absence of the submission of agenda items by the Commissioners as expected. Agenda items ranged from common responsibilities such as preparations for upcoming Summits, annual budgets and staff policies to initiatives planned by specific Directorates. Regrettably, strategic and substantive issues were hardly ever discussed. Opportunities were missed to discuss common positions for international negotiations and policy frameworks, the Regional Economic Communities and for harmonising the work of the Commission.
On average, five to six of the ten members of the Commission did not attend each of the meetings due to travels on missions. Only on four occasions did at least seven members attend the meetings. The minutes show that the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson hardly attended these meetings.The reduced frequency of meetings suggests that the initial energy and resolve to meet regularly have tapered off. The Panel was surprised to learn that minutes of collegiate meetings have not been circulated for over a year, as they had not been translated from the language in which they had been prepared. Further, action points were not well prepared and subsequent meetings did not review what had been discussed in past meetings.
No consistent attempt was made over this period to bring the Directors together despite their obvious managerial role. The consequences of this can be seen in the “silo” approach of working, overlapping mandates and activities. Indeed, very few examples of the Departments working together could be found. Regular meetings would have allowed for Departments and Directorates to present short progress narratives, human resource and budget reports to their peers as well as discuss corporate issues, upcoming planning, budgeting and reporting activities. The situation, as described above, will persist as long as there is no leadership to coordinate the various Departments and Directorates. Accordingly, the Panel proposes that the Secretary to the Commission should be designated as the Head of African Union Commission staff.