The phenomenon of governmental cannibalization is starkly evident, a disorganized scattering of resources and capabilities that undermines efficiency and purpose. Throughout various ministries and agencies, particularly in the realm of technology, a troubling trend emerges: rather than consolidating services and leveraging shared resources, each entity opts to construct its own substandard systems. This approach is often motivated by a desire to avoid compensating LIBTELCO, the designated service agency well-equipped to deliver such expertise.
By George Fahnbulleh, [email protected], Contributing Writer
Nestled a mere 275 feet from the Central Bank, LIBTELCO houses a data center that, perplexingly, operates at less than 25% capacity. In contrast, the Central Bank insists on maintaining its own data center, perpetuating a scenario of redundancy. This is not just a matter of convenience; it is an inefficiency that strains both budgets and data security.
LIBTELCO is not merely an alternative; it was meant to be the backbone of governmental data services, designed to offer server co-location to all agencies within the government. It’s essential to clarify that co-location does not imply a chaotic jumble of systems tossed together without care. Instead, think of it as a meticulously organized space where each server is securely housed, managed, and monitored.
This organization brings with it a triple redundancy in power supply — a testament to LIBTELCO’s commitment to reliability and service continuity. With multiple power sources, including local electric company lines, generators, and a battery bank capable of sustaining operations for 72 hours, LIBTELCO stands ready to provide uninterrupted service. This infrastructure is critical for maintaining access to vital government data day and night.
In a perplexing contrast, the Japanese government is investing in a fresh data center for the Ministry of Health, even as LIBTELCO’s resources sit largely untapped and underutilized. Does it not raise questions about priorities when funds earmarked for redundant and unnecessary data centers could be to critical health services?
Rather than collaborate and leverage the robust resources that LIBTELCO can offer, government ministries often siphon off funds intended for these centralized services, opting instead to construct their own inadequate systems. This misappropriation of financial resources leaves LIBTELCO deprived of the necessary capital to sustain its operations and maintain its vital infrastructure. Subsequently, when these same agencies find themselves facing challenges, they lament, “LIBTELCO doesn’t work,” thus perpetuating a cycle of blame that misses the root cause of the problem.
This fragmentation of data and resources across ministries and agencies hampers the government’s ability to maintain, aggregate, and analyze critical information, leaving data trapped in silos and rendering cohesive decision-making nearly impossible.
To rectify this situation, a sweeping change is essential: the Ministry of Finance must cease direct payments to ministries for services already provided by LIBTELCO. Instead, all financial resources should flow to LIBTELCO, reinforcing its position as the central hub for governmental data.
Take the National Identification Registry, for example. Charged with the responsibility of biometric registration for the government, the National Identification Registry should be the sole entity that handles identification services. Yet, the National Elections Commission, despite the legal stipulations granting the NIR exclusive rights to biometric identification, diverts funds—$13 million for biometric services—that should support the NIR’s mission. This diversion not only undermines the integrity of the national identification effort but also illustrates a deep-rooted misunderstanding of the distinction between identification and registration.
Identification confirms an individual’s identity, while registration qualifies that individual for specific tasks, such as voting. Herein lies another layer of complexity: the NIR identifies, while the NEC must register the individuals recognized by the NIR.
As a nation grappling with the challenges of limited resources, the time has come to reevaluate our approach. We cannot afford to duplicate services across agencies when every dollar counts. It is imperative to tighten and consolidate our efforts wherever possible, ensuring that both donor contributions and our own budgetary expenditures yield maximum impact.
