INTRODUCTION:

This is the second part to the series; DISHOURING THE HONOURED which is primarily written to serve as a benchmark to guiding countries and its government to rightly confer National Honours on its citizens and exceptional foreigners.

To have an insight to the background of this work, please click the title below;

However, in as much as the call for stripping the National Honours conferred on convicted individuals, as discussed in the introductory article to this series, the norm of the National Honours should be one that entails dignity. Dignity in the sense that individuals conferred with National Honours are people that are widely exemplary to all others in the nation irrespective of the field and career path they belong to. Due to this, they are meant to be people devoid of criminal records.

If the National Honours system is to enjoy a widespread commendation by the citizens of a country and beyond, arriving at a credible National Honours Selection System is a call that needs urgent attention.

I believe that the following 2 broad terms could be instrumental towards guided the National Honours System towards a widespread commendation.

i. Pre National Honourees Selection Process and

ii. Post- National Honourees Ongoing Character Check.

i. Pre-National Honourees Selection Process: This entails the way through which the National Honours awardees are chosen. It serves as a guide or blueprint that is directed towards the efficiency of how the individuals to be conferred with National Honours are conferred.

This process is a more rigorous process than the Post – National Honourees Ongoing

ii. The post National Honourees Ongoing Character Check: Simply put, this is the close eye of the government on recipients of the National Honours in a country. Such ongoing check is necessary to avert the possibility of the National Honours system being dragged to the mud due to an act of embarrassment by any recipient.

Also, this is imperative due to the role-model status the National Honourees have on the general populace, especially the youth.

GETTING THE NATIONAL HONOUREES SELECTION RIGHT

Getting right the National Honourees Selection is a process that requires fair ‘play. It should be devoid of nepotism, tribalism, god-fatherism, favouritism and what I call politicalism (making selection based on party membership, alliance, support and financial aid).

With a fair ’play approach in mind, the following steps must be taken to ensure that the National Honours system is efficiently carried out.

1. The use of an open nominating system

2. The options scale

3. The existence of a well-grounded honours committee.

4. The follow up.

1. The employ of what I call “an open nominating system.” Having researched getting equitable the National Honours System, there is no better extract with on how efficient the National Honours selection system is than that of the colonial Masters of Nigeria, the United Kingdom.

Since 1993, the United Kingdom has had a nominating system that is opened to the public. In this regard, the public upon the collection of what the UK calls “Nomination Forms”, they are allowed to select the individual they would love to see conferred with such honours. This form serves as a guide to what the National Honours is all about and also how best it should be filled so as to ensure that those interested in nominating people for the honours, rightly nominate.

Also, the United Kingdom recommended some very key questions. These questions are pivotal towards the nomination by the nominator or member of the public as it serves as an intrinsic guide towards making the right choice.

The questions are as follows;

Has my nominee…

made a difference to their community or field of work?
brought distinction to British life and enhanced its reputation?
exemplified the best sustained and selfless voluntary service?
demonstrated innovation and entrepreneurship?
carried the respect of their peers?
changed things, with an emphasis on achievement?
improved the lot of those less able to help themselves?
displayed moral courage and vision in making and delivering tough choices?

Studying these questions are putting myself in the shoes of a nominator, I believe that these above questions advantageously get people to listen to their inner mind with the objective of ensuring that sentiments are put aside in the nomination.

This is because having asked oneself all questions above, it will make the nominator to know that putting forward a name entails a name that would deserve the honour and not just a name that should receive it.

2. The options scale: This is a reverse to the open nominating system. By the options scale, rather than members of the public made to put forward their preferred names for the committee to make the final selection, the government puts forward the name to the public. These names are put forward by the government directly or through a committee.

In doing this, the public are made to vote electronically or whichever means deemed necessary.

For fairness, there must be the existence of an independent body charged with the responsibility of compiling the result based on the vote by the public.

This done, the candidates with the highest votes are nominated subject to the slots available.

*NB. This serves as an alternative to recommendation 1.

3. The existence or formation of a well-grounded honours committee: By a well-grounded honours committee I mean a group of individuals that are professionals. These professionals should comprise people from the major fields, discipline, career path or sectors in an economy. These sectors range from the entertainment, political, sports, economic etc.

Moreover, upon receiving the forms comprising the choices made by the public, the committee will be tasked with the responsibility of screening the nominees which primarily will be to investigate the nominees in order to ensure that they are devoid of criminal records.

In addition, what I call “a performance or contribution check of the nominees” should be carried out. This entails having a thorough check of the contribution of the nominees to the nation or chosen field or career path with a view to knowing if their contribution is worthy of public emulation.

The selection should not be rushed and the committee members should not be under any kind of pressure to fix names that are not on the list.

4. The follow up: This is a probation for the National Honourees lasting their lifetime from the day of being conferred the honours. The prupose of this is to ensure that recipients are well behaved and don’t bring to disrepute, the National Honours System.

In a similar vein, here is a quote from http://www.direct.gov.uk in the United Kingdom, “an honurs Committee normally conducts its business by correspondence. It considers cases where an individual who has been honoured is judged to have brought the honours system into disrepute, for example if he or she:

has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more, or
has been censured, struck off etc by the relevant professional or other regulatory authority for action or inaction which was directly relevant to the granting of the honours.”

From this points stated above, the call for stripping off the various categories of Nigeria National Honours conferred on individuals found guilty of wrongdoing is highly commendable.

The concluding work of this series can be found through the link below;