Critics of the proposed deputy Exco positions are raising concerns about the potential for unnecessary government bloat and the associated fiscal burden on the state. At a time when public funds are needed for essential infrastructure and social welfare programs, adding new political appointments could be viewed as an inefficient use of taxpayer money. Skeptics argue that the government should focus on optimizing existing resources rather than expanding the payroll for political roles.
There is also a concern regarding the clarity of responsibilities for these new positions. Without well-defined scopes of work, there is a risk that the deputy roles could lead to overlapping duties, confusion, and internal friction within the state administration. If the primary goal is to improve efficiency, critics suggest that administrative reforms or the hiring of professional civil servants might be more effective than creating new political posts that could be perceived as patronage.
Accountability is another major point of contention. The public expects transparency in how government positions are created and filled. If these roles are seen as a way to reward political allies rather than a genuine effort to improve service delivery, it could erode public trust in the state government. Ensuring that these appointments are based on merit and clear operational necessity is essential to maintaining the integrity of the administration.
Finally, the government must demonstrate that the current system is truly failing before justifying the costs of an expansion. If the existing Exco members are struggling, the solution might lie in better management practices or the reorganization of departments rather than the creation of new, high-level political offices. The burden of proof remains on the state leadership to show that this proposal provides tangible benefits to the public that outweigh the financial and administrative risks.