By Mark DaCosta- The Alliance For Change (AFC) issued a detailed policy blueprint calling for a comprehensive remaking of how public enterprises in our country are governed and held to account. The statement argues that utilities and other state-controlled providers must be run on professional, performance‑oriented lines — protected from short‑term political pressures, transparent in their finances and accountable for service delivery to citizens.
The AFC proposes that each public enterprise be given a clear statutory remit that strikes a balance between commercial sustainability and social obligations. That remit, the party says, should come with measurable indicators — financial benchmarks and service standards for coverage, reliability and affordability — that are regularly reviewed. To enforce those targets, the plan recommends formal performance agreements between boards, management and the relevant ministry; annual public reporting; and an independent auditing regime. In practical terms this would mean publishing operating plans, budgets, and explanations when targets are missed.
AFC places particular emphasis on board composition and the appointment process. It advocates lean boards of specialists appointed through open, competence‑based selection, including independent chairs and members skilled in finance, engineering, environmental management and consumer issues. Importantly, the plan calls for mechanisms to give the parliamentary opposition and other stakeholders a meaningful role in selections, as a guard against partisan stacking. Boards should also have standing audit and risk committees to provide continuous oversight.
On transparency and financial discipline, the AFC wants state enterprises to adopt international accounting standards and to open their books to external scrutiny. Internal audit functions would report directly to audit committees while the Auditor General would continue to perform annual checks. The aim is to make related‑party transactions, procurement awards and strategic decisions visible to citizens and watchdogs alike.
Management reforms are central to the proposal. Senior executives would be recruited through transparent competitions, employed on fixed‑term contracts with performance‑linked compensation, and insulated from day‑to‑day ministerial interference. Staff performance, training and career progression would be tied to objective targets rather than political loyalty. Where services can be exposed to competition — such as power generation or transport — the AFC recommends partial liberalisation and regulation that treats private and public providers on equal terms.
The plan also promotes modernisation through technology and efficiency measures: digital billing and metering, remote monitoring, data analytics and, where appropriate, artificial intelligence for demand forecasting. Environmental and social goals are woven into the proposals, including mandatory monitoring of climate risks, clear accounting for cross‑subsidies to vulnerable customers, and procurement rules that favour local suppliers and green criteria.
To coordinate these reforms, AFC urges creating a dedicated state ownership unit within either the Ministry of Finance or the Cabinet Office. That body would standardise governance practices, support capacity building for boards and managers, and benchmark performance against regional and international peers.
For our nation, the reforms would touch visible utilities such as electricity and water providers and could transform how citizens experience basic services. But implementation will be challenging. Legal changes will be needed to define mandates and create an ownership unit; entrenched patronage and resistance from vested interests; regulators will require substantial strengthening to ensure a level playing field if markets are opened.
If pursued carefully, with transparent stakeholder consultations and safeguards for vulnerable consumers, the package could attract investment, reduce wasteful spending and improve reliability. The AFC’s plan sets out an ambitious road map — one that will test the political will of decision‑makers and the capacity of institutions to move from policy papers to tangible improvements in service for every citizen.
