By Abdulhameed Musa Abdullahi
In recent months, thousands of young Nigerians have expressed deep frustration over the outcome and delays surrounding the last federal civil service recruitment exercise. Many applicants who participated in the process are still waiting for clarity, feedback, or final lists. This silence has created anxiety, suspicion, and in some cases, anger.
However, one troubling development is the direction this anger has taken. A large number of citizens have channeled their grievances toward the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF), accusing it of manipulating or delaying the recruitment process. While the frustration of applicants is understandable, the target of that frustration is, in many cases, misplaced.
The truth is simple: the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation is not responsible for recruitment into the federal civil service. By law and constitutional mandate, the responsibility for recruitment, appointment, promotion, and discipline of federal civil servants lies with the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC).
This distinction is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of structure and legality. The Federal Civil Service Commission is an independent body established specifically to manage recruitment and related personnel matters in the federal civil service. On the other hand, the Office of the Head of Service is primarily responsible for coordination, administrative leadership, policy implementation, and ensuring efficiency across ministries and agencies.
When the public directs its complaints to the wrong institution, two negative things happen. First, the actual institution responsible for the recruitment process escapes the necessary scrutiny and accountability. Second, it creates unnecessary tension and misinformation within the system.
Nigeria is at a critical stage where youth unemployment remains one of the country’s biggest challenges. For many young graduates, federal civil service recruitment represents a rare and valuable opportunity. When such processes are delayed, unclear, or poorly communicated, the frustration is real and justified. But for that frustration to produce results, it must be directed at the right channels.
Accountability in a democracy depends on accurate information. Citizens must know who is responsible for what. The Federal Civil Service Commission should therefore be the focus of public inquiries, demands for transparency, and calls for timely communication regarding recruitment outcomes.
At the same time, government institutions must also learn from the current public reaction. Silence and poor communication create room for rumors, misinformation, and public distrust. Clear timelines, official updates, and transparent processes would go a long way in restoring confidence in federal recruitment exercises.
As citizens, activists, and young leaders, our duty is not only to demand accountability but also to ensure that our advocacy is guided by facts. Misdirected anger may be loud, but it rarely produces results. Informed advocacy, on the other hand, strengthens institutions and leads to meaningful change.
The frustration of Nigerian applicants is valid. But if we truly want answers, fairness, and transparency, we must hold the right institution accountable.