Estonian defense ministry secretary general dismissed; veteran official warns of dangerous precedent

Estonia's government on Thursday dismissed Kaimo Kuusk from his post as permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence. Former Estonian Defence Forces commander Martin Herem is the candidate for the incoming defence minister position.

The dismissal has sparked debate over whether a permanent secretary can be removed on grounds of incompatibility with a minister who has not yet taken office. A former secretary general who spent more than twenty-one years leading the chancelleries of the Social Affairs and Economic Affairs Ministries points out that Section 55(2) of the Government of the Republic Act explicitly states that the end of a minister's mandate is not, by itself, grounds for dismissing a secretary general. Using that justification pre-emptively, before the new minister has even been sworn in, looks poor and raises concern that it could become a precedent affecting other permanent secretaries.

The expert recalled that the rule protecting secretary generals from dismissal for a set period after a new minister arrives — originally one year, later shortened to six months — was designed to preserve continuity and institutional knowledge and to prevent the politicization of the civil service. Without it, every change of minister could trigger a wholesale replacement of officials with politically aligned appointees.

The conversation also touched on the broader question of dividing responsibility between ministers and secretary generals in light of the shell procurement scandal. By law, a secretary general leads, coordinates and organizes the ministry's work, but does not hold independent decision-making power; political responsibility rests with the minister, while the secretary general answers for the performance of ministry officials under them. The expert also voiced caution about reports that the ministry's next permanent secretary could come not from a military background but from a major defence-sector company, having previously represented that company's interests — calling this a risk to trust that would be better avoided.

The expert said they hope the current dismissal will not become a recurring practice in future government decisions.