Did it have to be? An exercise that was promised, delayed, and finally ‘completed’ has not been effected. Or was it?
It is understood that the Public Service Salary Review was accepted by the Deputy Governor, approved by Executive Council with the House of Assembly approving the funds required to finance the anticipated new salaries.
For public servants their new salaries were not merely anticipated, they were expected. After all, one minister has declared on Facebook that the new salaries would be effected in May, 2026. That, it appears, could not be achieved so it was then determined that the new salaries would be paid in June and the June salary would reflect the component that should have been paid in May.
Payment in May or June was not to be realised. The Deputy Governor in a communique dated 14th June, 2026 declared that the implementation of the new salaries was being put on hold. Many officers were dissatisfied with the results of the Salary Review Exercise and made their dissatisfaction known to elected officials. The general feeling appears to be that the value of many of the jobs in the public service are not properly reflected in the Salary Review Exercise and that elements such as experience and length of tenure have not been considered, leaving many officers feeling that they have been downgraded. The Premier was forced to intervene after it was made clear that the fact that the Governor and Deputy Governor had responsibility for the public service did not absolve them of any responsibility for the implementation of what many perceived as a flawed salary review exercise. The result – a pausing of the implementation of the Salary Review Exercise.
But did the apparent confusion surrounding the roll out of the new salaries have to be? Were the concerns being expressed by public officers not apparent to those who should understand the workings of the public service and the expectations of public officers? Where was the attempt to address any concerns by ensuring a transparent and inclusive exercise? The consensus appears to be that those responsible for effecting the salary review did a poor job. Fingers are being pointed at the Deputy Governor and the senior officials in the Department of Public Administration who should have been concerned to ensure the smooth roll out of the salary review exercise. Blame is also being accorded to members of the Executive Council and the House of Assembly for failing to ensure that the results of the salary review exercise were considered fair and equitable by the anticipated primary beneficiaries of the exercise.
Instead of a satisfied public service, we now see a deeply suspicious public service. Their suspicion is grounded in the belief of many that persons in authority were primarily concerned to ensure that the review benefited them and had little regard for what the outcome meant for others.
The suspicion has not waned with the pausing of the implementation of the new salary structure. The requirement to submit grievance with a framework stipulating the parameters of the grievance submission that can be made has not been well received. The language of the framework has caused persons to form the opinion that their views are unlikely to be considered far less addressed.
An exercise that was intended and anticipated to bring long awaited relief to public officers has turned out to be a source of frustration and vexation. It did not have to be. Senior public officials (appointed and elected) dropped the ball. Can they now pick it up and remedy the wrongs many public officers believe have been meted out to them by the Salary Review Exercise?
