I have followed with some form of wrapped and benumbing amazement, if not utter consternation, the needless controversy and conflicting viewpoints canvased on dress code amongst civil servants in Delta State. I am aware that a number of public universities have attempted to standardize dress code amongst their students.
Apart from the Orthodox faculties such as Law , Medical Schools and a few others, the Universities have not recorded the expected level of success in the crusade aimed at sanctioning what is considered to be indecent dressing. The students consider their dress patterns as part of their freedom to express themselves and possibly differ from existing conventions, in this context a protest culture against non- involvement in the running of the affairs of society.
If their voice cannot be heard, they appear to have resolved that they should then create some form of bizarre scenes that will make it compelling for them to be noticed. There is however, an intricate issue that borders on public sensibility along that of striking a deliberate and acceptable benchmark in decency and decorum. I think it is wrong for an individual in the pursuit of his right to self- expression through choice of fashion to constitute an embarrassment to the rest members of the public.
Dress codes in public places have therefore turned out to be regulated along the line of decency. It is absolutely wrong for people to dress as if they are heading for the night clubs only for them to go to government offices to attend to members of the public on behalf of an Agency or government. A female secretary who dresses in the attire of a prostitute has become a source of distraction not just to the boss but an embarrassment to all those who come into the office.
It should also be noted that a committed worker should be a faithful ambassador of the institution he or she works for not an unhealthy spectacle causing distraction, constituting embarrassment. The spirit behind the now controversial circular was clear when it warned that “all female dressing should be with decorum devoid of any provocative exposure of cleavages. Meanwhile, braided or tainted hair; long eye lashes and artificial nails are prohibited.”
For the men, the circular states “Resource Control and Papas Caps are prohibited; while Bushy beards are proscribed.”
Those may be harsh and highly prescriptive words but the intension of restoration should not be lost on any discerning and objective mind.
Some have argued that the focus should be on the extent to which the worker delivers on set tasks rather than on how he dresses for as long as it is decent and modest.
Decency and public decorum should therefore remain the guiding principles. The wave of provocative dressing that assaults human sensibility has gone rather pervasive. Not even the places of religious worship are free from the abrasive fashion invasion and intrusion of offensive culture of semi nudity. As it stands currently, a number of churches across the country have also taken it upon themselves to prescribe dress code and outlaw bizarre, sensuous and provocative dress patterns with information to that effect boldly posted at their gates.
Of all the gamut of complex issues and growing challenges bedeviling the civil service, it does appear to be a collective conspiracy of resort to diversionary tactics, if not outright deluding escapist device to elevate dress code to the level of public discourse the way it has been done in Delta State in the past couple of weeks.
There are pressing issues of dearth of professionalism in the public space; some call it death of beauracracy, poor motivation strategy and inclination to labour exploitation, skewed reward system amidst avalanche of cronyism and system limitations. Insecure pension scheme that makes those who have given their very best to retire into vulnerability and the unfair deductions in form of one mandatory contributory scheme or the other.
These constitute issues that can be dialogued over for a more fulfilling, productive and rewarding service scheme. Paying undue attention to Dress Code almost sounds like pandering towards mundanities and elevating trivialities. Dress code however answers to demands of professional situations ,
career definitions and exigencies. No one expects an engineer going for construction site inspection to dress like a state attorney going for court appearance. We also do not expect the artiste of the State Council for Arts and Culture to be rehearsing in suits and tie to match in adherence to the provisions of a dress code circular.
It is however not subject of debate that it is in the place of the employer to prescribe the dress code for the employees. The Delta State civil service provided for this on page 42 of the Civil service rules,04314,which stipulates that ‘No Officer shall appear in the office or anywhere in his official capacity attired in a manner deemed inappropriate or immodest.’ It is not that the umbrella body of Labour in the state, the NLC is not aware of this provision. They are however worried that implementation may turn draconian and supervisory officers might turn it into a tool for oppression and persecution of staff.
The insistence on empowerment in the form of wardrobe, or in this context, dress code allowance is equally understandable but should not be overemphasized. The specification on suits and senator wears requires the updating of wardrobes, a luxury many workers can’t easily afford in the present economic circumstances.
That is why time is needed ,say from now to the end of the year for full implementation to commence in January 2026. Truth be told, the average worker across the country is operating under the weight of the unfavorable and crippling economic policies of the Federal Government. From housing to transportation, education for members of the family, cost of feeding and that of healthcare, cost of living has become a burden too heavy for the average worker to bear.
Some are already at the precincts of breakup point. That they still manage to keep sane and productive remains a testimony of resilience. It was however, in the place of the Head of Service to revisit the dress code provision of the State Civil Service rules.
And she did in no unequivocal terms. The resistance it is meeting is not because the workers are averse to decent or formal dressing. It is rather that the cost implications constitute additional burden in these economically tenuous and tempestuous times.
It was in that light that the released dress code sparked off criticism with respect to its timing and perception of priorities on the part of government. Some critics have indeed insisted that it is a misplaced priority that disregards indigenous culture and the prevailing economic realities of workers. senior civil servants on Salary Grade Levels (SGL) 15 and above are expected to appear in full English suits from Mondays to Thursdays. Some believe that this lacks enough local content in cultural renaissance.
That perhaps is why some public affairs commentators have insisted that the revised dress code is a colonial hangover in the 21st century that critically undermines the creative essence of an African identity.
In all, the goal of the revised dress code circular remains a noble one, to “uphold decency in the appearance of Public Servants across the State.”
Labour’s insistence on empowerment through a wardrobe allowance can also be keenly considered by the government of the day. At the end, Delta State shall be showcasing a reformed ,productive and rebranded civil service that all stakeholders will be proud of.
