Public Service Should Not Depend on Someone’s Mood

Thanks are due to staff who welcome visitors, listen patiently and willingly help them understand a procedure. They show that a service role exists to assist the public. People can usually understand necessary conditions and missing documents when the explanation is sincere and the work is taken seriously.

There is also a different experience: a greeting goes unanswered, a question is not heard and the visitor appears to be a burden. Replies are limited to “ask someone else”, “your papers are incomplete” or “this is not my responsibility”. A person who has travelled a long way may then have to repeat the journey over a matter that could have been explained promptly or handled by telephone.

This raises a question about the understanding of public office. Is the problem a lack of service awareness, or a mistaken belief that the position gives power over others? Performing a duty should not depend on persistent pleading, nor should it be presented as a personal favour.

Deliberate delay for personal benefit, favouritism or misuse of authority can harm the public interest and should be examined through facts and evidence. Where statutory elements are established, disciplinary or criminal responsibility may arise. Examples may include an intentional breach of official duties damaging state interests, or misuse of authority to obstruct the execution of laws or judgments. The particular offence and penalty depend on the applicable provision. Every delay or discourteous response cannot simply be labelled a felony.

Electronic systems are intended to simplify procedures, reduce journeys and shorten waiting times. If applications are submitted but then left unread or unprocessed, the intended benefit is lost. Leaving a request untouched for days or weeks and then referring generally to workload can turn a convenient channel into another obstacle. Improvement requires both functioning systems and timely work with clear feedback.

When unexplained obstruction occurs, a person can raise the matter through suitable channels with the responsible manager or higher authority, preserving records of the application and communications. Where a genuine problem exists, a properly presented complaint can support correction and prevent others facing the same difficulty.

For my part, if a properly submitted request remains without reasonable progress or encounters obvious evasion, I explain the position to the competent official and continue through formal channels. When an application is complete and meets the requirements, a clear and timely response is a reasonable expectation. Awareness of rights can help build a culture of responsible service.

Legal protections for officials recognise the pressure, improper influence and unacceptable conduct they may face while performing their duties. Those protections support lawful, independent work. They do not justify belittling visitors or obstructing their affairs. A public position represents the institution and carries a duty to respect people and protect their rights.

The same principle matters in private organisations. A service role should help people complete their affairs, rather than provide an arbitrary means of controlling their circumstances. Honesty, respect and serious work build trust; intentional obstruction and indifference erode it.

A position is a responsibility entrusted to its holder. Those who perform their work conscientiously serve both the people before them and the wider community.

By Mohammed bin Saeed Al-Maamari, Advocate and Legal Consultant.

Al-Maamari & Al-Saidi Law Firm | +968 90605000 | info@mflegal.net | mohd@mflegal.net