There are moments that go beyond everyday frustration. In one district, an expectant mother went to a hospital but, because she was not registered under Mutuelle de Santé – the community-based health insurance scheme in Rwanda – she was turned away. She later passed away at her home. ALSO READ: Govt orders health facilities to treat patients before insurance checks It is a painful story, and for many people, it feels all too real. It is likely just one example of many that never reach the president’s table or catch the public eye. This is why, when a president says government services are not working well, people expect to see something happen next. If hospitals are slow, if local offices delay services, or if officials are not performing, citizens assume that strong words from the top will be followed by visible action. ALSO READ: Kagame urges leaders to put citizens first, end recurring failures In recent years, President Kagame has openly raised concerns about service delivery-delays, inefficiency, and poor performance in government institutions. These concerns are also reflected in various government reports and assessments, which point to similar challenges across sectors. For many Rwandans, this is not surprising. It reflects what they experience daily, and shows that the president is listening to the public outcry. Acknowledging poor services publicly sends a message that these issues are real and taken seriously at the highest level. This alone carries weight. In many countries, leaders avoid admitting such weaknesses. When a president speaks openly about them, it signals accountability: it shows awareness, sets expectations, and reminds officials that their work is being watched and judged. Yet despite this, people may still feel that nothing is being done. When poor performance continues without visible consequences, it can appear tolerated, leaving citizens to ask: if the problem is known, why does it persist? It is important, however, to recognise that not all action is immediately visible. Governments often operate through internal reviews, evaluations, warnings, and carefully planned changes that take time to produce results. Seen this way, accountability may be happening behind the scenes, even if it is not obvious to the public. In my view, the challenge lies in bridging the gap between what is being done behind the doors and what citizens can see, so that confidence and trust are maintained while performance improves. Otherwise, acting quickly or publicly is not always simple as the public thinks. Removing some officials, can disrupt programmes, delay projects, and weaken continuity. New leaders need time to understand systems and deliver results. And in some cases, fixing problems within the existing structure may not always be easy. In any case, speaking about the issues can itself be a form of action. It implies pressure, signals expectations, and pushes officials to improve without causing sudden disruption. Interpreted this way, the president’s call reflects an effort to balance accountability with stability. This approach, however, depends on how leaders respond overtime. When some remain indifferent despite the guidance and support provided, their inaction begins to undermine not only the intent of the president’s call but also the values of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which emphasise accountability, responsibility, and service to the people. I hold that a first misstep may be forgiven. A second occurrence might be seen as a second chance, and a third one as a lapse of judgment, but the fourth ceases to be excusable and reveals a pattern that demands accountability. Public officials should understand that what matters most to citizens is not what goes on behind closed doors. What counts is what they actually experience: the services they receive, the problems that get solved, and the improvements they can see in their daily lives. People judge government not by internal processes, but by what they actually experience. Officials may feel pressure behind the scenes, but if the public perceives no real accountability, frustration grows, patience wears thin, and the weight of leadership’s message is lost. For those in leadership, respond not only to the president’s call, but also to the concerns being raised by the ordinary citizens. Public service is not a responsibility carried out in a vacuum-it directly touches the lives of the people who rely on it every day. This requires more than the quick fixes or just responding to the president’s call. It calls for a shift in perspective. Step outside the office, even if only in thought, and see the system as a citizen would. Imagine needing and getting a service without influence, without access, and without the comfort of authority. In that position, what would you expect? That is the standard by which public service should be judged. Taking ownership, then, means going beyond reacting to problems when they are raised. It means anticipating gaps before they become complaints, addressing inefficiencies before they become delays, and ensuring that systems work not just in design, but in practice. The writer is a management consultant and strategist.
