EDITORIAL: It has apparently become necessary for the federal government to remind its own employees, for a third time, that they must disclose whether they hold foreign citizenship. An office memorandum issued on October 21 has given civil servants another 90 days to submit declarations concerning their dual nationality, following an earlier directive issued in June.
Ministries and divisions have been instructed to collect the information through a prescribed form that also seeks details of dependents’ foreign citizenship, travel documents and marriages to foreign nationals. That the government should be struggling to obtain such basic information from people directly employed by it raises questions considerably more serious than the administrative exercise itself.
There is something profoundly troubling about a state that routinely demands compliance from citizens and businesses but appears unable to secure it within its own administrative machinery. Government employees operate within established service rules, reporting structures, and disciplinary frameworks. Their employment records are maintained by departments that exercise direct authority over their appointments, postings, and professional conduct. If repeated instructions are required merely to obtain declarations, the effectiveness of those arrangements deserves examination. What, precisely, prevented the earlier directives from producing the required information, and why has another three-month deadline become necessary?
The distinction between lawful dual nationality and the obligation to disclose it is important. Possessing foreign citizenship does not automatically establish misconduct or disloyalty, and the legal position may differ according to the office held and the applicable service rules. But where disclosure is lawfully required, compliance should be straightforward and verifiable. Public servants cannot reasonably expect the government to enforce regulations across the country while treating its own administrative instructions as optional. Equally, the authorities must make clear the legal basis, scope, and consequences of the information being demanded.
The inclusion of dependents’ citizenship and travel documents introduces further questions about proportionality and the handling of personal information. There may be legitimate reasons for requiring such disclosures in sensitive positions, particularly where conflicts of interest or security considerations arise. However, the government should explain how this information will be used, who will have access to it and what safeguards will protect it from misuse. An administrative exercise involving thousands of employees and their families requires clear rules and responsible data management.
More fundamentally, the episode exposes the weakness of accountability within the bureaucracy. If departments have failed to collect declarations despite earlier instructions, responsibility cannot rest exclusively with individual employees. Administrative heads must explain whether the directives were communicated properly, whether compliance was monitored, and whether any action followed missed deadlines. A third notice, without an accompanying account of the first two, risks becoming another demonstration of the government’s preference for issuing instructions over ensuring their implementation.
The implications extend well beyond nationality declarations. The same administrative apparatus is expected to enforce taxation, regulate economic activity, oversee public expenditure and implement policies affecting millions of citizens. Its credibility depends on an ability to establish obligations, monitor compliance and respond consistently when rules are ignored. Repeatedly extending deadlines within the civil service sends an unfortunate signal about the seriousness with which official instructions are treated.
The government should, therefore, publish an account of compliance with the earlier directives, establish clear departmental responsibility, and ensure that the latest exercise reaches a verifiable conclusion. Any consequences for non-compliance must follow the applicable law and service rules, with appropriate opportunities for employees to respond. Future disclosure requirements should form part of a reliable administrative system, supported by periodic verification and secure record-keeping.
There is considerable irony in a government seeking to demonstrate its authority through a third reminder to its own officials. The matter may appear routine, but the institutional implications are anything but trivial. A state that cannot reliably enforce its instructions within its own offices will struggle to persuade the wider public that its rules carry any greater authority outside them.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments