A GOOD ASSESSMENT IS A MIRROR OF PERFORMANCE

 

 

Adeladius Makwega & Mwanakwetu Analytical Features Desk

 

DODOMA, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026

 

The Permanent Secretary, President’s Office – Public Service Management and Good Governance of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr. Juma Mkomi, on September 1, 2026, emphasized the importance of monitoring and evaluation in improving efficiency, strengthening accountability, and ensuring that Government plans are implemented on time and in accordance with the required standards of performance.

 

Mr. Mkomi made the remarks while chairing a meeting of the Central Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, held at the National Archives and Records Department Hall in Dodoma.

 

Among other matters, the Committee discussed the implementation of the Office’s responsibilities during the Fourth Quarter of the Financial Year.

 

Emphasizing the importance of information generated through monitoring and evaluation, the Permanent Secretary stated:

 

“Monitoring and evaluation reports should serve as a basis for improvement and evidence-based decision-making, rather than merely showing the level of implementation.”

He further urged leaders and public servants to ensure prudent use of resources, accountability, and the delivery of productive and effective public services.

 

But, dear reader, what does this statement really mean in the broader context of Tanzania’s Public Service?

 

Because the eyes of Mwanakwetu witnessed the activities surrounding this important meeting, and because Mwanakwetu holds the Public Service in high regard—a public institution whose traditions Tanzanians inherited from the administrators who served Tanganyika and later Tanzania—I have decided to look at this matter through the lens of analysis.

 

Dear reader, let me make one thing clear from the outset:

The Permanent Secretary’s remarks are not merely policy statements without a legal foundation. They are, to a considerable extent, consistent with the legal framework governing performance management in Tanzania’s Public Service.

 

When we turn to the Public Service Act, Cap. 298 (R.E. 2023) and the Public Service Regulations, 2022 (GN No. 444), we begin to see a system designed to ensure that both public institutions and individual public servants are assessed on the basis of objectives, implementation and results.

 

Dear reader, before going any further, it is important to understand these terms. They are frequently used in Government meetings, but their deeper meaning is not always fully understood.

 

“Monitoring is the process of tracking the progress of work while implementation is taking place.In simple terms, monitoring asks:

Are we doing what we planned to do? Are we doing it on time? Are we doing it to the expected standard?

In short, monitoring answers these questions while the work is still in progress.

On the other hand, assessment or evaluation goes a step further.

It asks whether the objectives that were set have actually been achieved, to what extent they have been achieved, with what level of quality, at what cost, and—where objectives have not been achieved—why they were not achieved.

And then comes feedback.

Dear reader, feedback is like the final child in the family—it brings the entire process together.”

This is where information obtained from monitoring and evaluation is communicated back to the individual officer or institution so that they can understand what was done well, what went wrong or remained incomplete, and what corrective measures need to be taken.

The chain can therefore be understood as:

“PLAN → IMPLEMENT → MONITOR → ASSESS → PROVIDE FEEDBACK → CORRECT → IMPROVE RESULTS.”

This is precisely why the Permanent Secretary’s statement that monitoring and evaluation reports should form the basis for evidence-based decision-making carries such significance.

 

It means that these reports should not merely be prepared to fill files, presented at meetings, or used to demonstrate that a particular activity has been completed.

 

They should help the Government understand the reality of implementation and take appropriate action.

 

Dear reader, this is where we begin to see the direct connection between the Secretary-General’s remarks and the Public Service Act.

Section 6(1)(a) of the Public Service Act, Cap. 298 R.E. 2023 links the management of the Public Service with the concept of results-oriented management, together with the long-standing companion in our public service system, the Open Performance Review and Appraisal System (OPRAS).

This is extremely important.

It means that a public servant should not be assessed merely because he or she reported to work, remained in the office throughout the day, or produced numerous reports.

The bigger questions should be:

“What did the officer do?What was the officer expected to do?What objectives were achieved?What results were produced?And to what extent did the quality of service to citizens improve?”

From this perspective, OPRAS and results-oriented management seek to connect an officer’s duties, objectives, performance indicators and expected results.

The law also recognizes performance and efficiency among the considerations that may be relevant to the career development of public servants, including promotion, alongside other matters required under the law and applicable public service procedures.

Therefore, performance is not a side issue in the Public Service.It is part of the foundation upon which the system is built.

 

This is where Permanent Secretary Mkomi’s statement gains another layer of significance.

Regulation 22 of the Public Service Regulations, 2022 establishes a performance contract framework involving the processes of planning performance, implementing plans, monitoring progress, conducting reviews, assessing performance and providing feedback.

And this does not concern institutions alone.

It also concerns the individual public servant.

This means that the system should enable a public servant to understand from the beginning:

“What am I expected to do?What results am I expected to achieve?How will my performance be assessed?When will I receive feedback?And what support will I receive if I fail to achieve the expected standard?”

That is the logic behind a performance management system based on results.

Therefore, when the Permanent Secretary emphasizes that monitoring and evaluation are essential for improving efficiency and accountability, he is, in effect, calling for the implementation of a system that is already recognized within Tanzania’s legal framework governing the Public Service.

 

Dear reader, the most interesting issue is not simply hearing that monitoring and evaluation are important.

The bigger question is:

Are monitoring and evaluation processes in our institutions genuinely being used to improve performance—or do they sometimes become exercises aimed at finding someone to blame?

This is where the Permanent Secretary’s statement carries a much broader message.

 

If monitoring and evaluation reports are supposed to form the basis for evidence-based decisions, then that evidence should be used to identify achievements, establish shortcomings, understand why objectives were not achieved, and ultimately determine appropriate corrective measures.

From this perspective, a good assessment is not a punishment.

Mwanakwetu is not saying that once a public servant fails to achieve a target, the first response should automatically be punishment.

No.

A good assessment is a mirror of performance.

It shows you where you are, where you came from, and where you are supposed to go.

And when there is a problem, the question should not simply be:

“Who should we punish?”

The questions should also be:

“What caused the problem?Were the objectives clearly communicated to the officer?Did the officer have adequate resources?Was the officer given the necessary supervision and feedback?Were there circumstances that affected the officer’s ability to perform the assigned duties?”

These questions are essential if we genuinely want to build a Public Service that is measured by results and guided by evidence.

Therefore, dear reader, Permanent Secretary Juma Mkomi’s remarks can be viewed as a call to make monitoring and evaluation a living part of Government management, rather than treating it merely as an exercise of preparing reports for meetings.

The Government plans.Public servants implement.Supervisors monitor.Institutions assess.Information is collected.And, based on that evidence, decisions are made.

That is the cycle capable of making Government more efficient, more accountable and more responsive to the needs of citizens.

And because Mwanakwetu believes that public service is a responsibility entrusted to public servants by the citizens—not merely an ordinary job—when we see leaders emphasizing accountability, prudent use of resources and productive service delivery, it is also our responsibility to respectfully ask:

“Is this system being implemented fairly across our institutions?Are assessments genuinely being used to improve performance?And when a public servant fails to achieve the expected objectives, are all relevant circumstances examined before action is taken?”

These are questions that can open a much wider conversation about the future of Tanzania’s Public Service.

For today, dear reader, Mwanakwetu stops here.

This analysis has been prepared by the Mwanakwetu Analytical Articles Desk, which continues to closely follow developments in the Public Service and the manner in which legal and administrative systems are implemented in our nation.

Remember:

“A GOOD ASSESSMENT IS A MIRROR OF PERFORMANCE.”

Have a good day.

Email: makwadeladius@gmail.com

Tel: 0717649257