Lifuka accuses Kunda of misleading the nation
Lifuka accuses Kunda of misleading the nationBy Noel Sichalwe
Wednesday August 22, 2007 [04:00]
Transparency International Zambia (TIZ) president Reuben Lifuka yesterday charged that justice minister George Kunda is misleading the nation by claiming that the proposal to require judicial officers declare assets is unprecedented in the Commonwealth region.
Lifuka was reacting to Kunda who claimed that the proposed measures in the private Judicial Code of Conduct (Amendment) Bill were unprecedented in the entire Commonwealth and were a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary.
Kunda said this when submitting on a private member’s bill sponsored by Kabwata Patriotic Front member of Parliament Given Lubinda.
But Lifuka said there were several countries in the Commonwealth that had such legislation and that Kunda should correct the wrong impression he had created.
“We challenge the Minister of Justice to correct the wrong impression given to Parliament and we wish to draw the attention of the Speaker to the rather unfortunate act of misinformation by the Hon. Minister of Justice,” Lifuka said. “We read with disbelief the statement attributed to the Minister of Justice that the proposal to require judicial officers to declare assets is unprecedented in the Commonwealth and that the bill is the only one of its kind in the Commonwealth.”
Lifuka said TIZ fully supported the move to have such legislation passed because they firmly believed that corruption in a justice system distorted the proper role of judges that were supposed to protect the civil liberties and rights of the citizen to ensure fair trial by competent and impartial courts.
He said in corrupt judiciaries, citizens were not afforded their democratic right of equal access to courts nor were they treated equally by the courts.
“The merits of the case and applicable law are not paramount in corrupt judiciaries but rather the status of the parties and the benefit the judges and court officials derive from their decisions,” Lifuka said. “However, we equally would like to state categorically that the Minister of Justice was not entirely correct in his assertion that this intended amendment was unprecedented in the Commonwealth.”
Lifuka said TIZ submitted to the Parliamentary Committee and the evidence clearly highlighted that there were countries in the Commonwealth and in Africa who required judicial officers to declare assets and liabilities and among them included Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Ghana.
He said in Kenya, the Public Officers Ethics Act of 2003 applied to all public officers including judicial officers. He said this was an Act of Parliament to advance the ethics of public officers by providing for a code of conduct and ethics for public officers and requiring financial declarations from specified public officers.
Lifuka said Tanzania had the Public Leadership Code of Ethics Chapter 398 of the Laws of the United Republic of Tanzania which applied to public leaders who included the President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker, Chief Justice of the United Republic Attorney General, judges and magistrates, chiefs of the defence forces, Inspector General of Police and the Regional Police Commander, as well as the director general of intelligence, among others.
“In the case of Ghana, there is a law referred to as the Public Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification Act, 1998) and this applies to public officers who include the President of the Republic, the Chief Justice, Justice of the Superior Court of the Judicature, all judicial officers including members of the regional and circuit tribunals, and presidential staffers and aides among others,” he said.
“These are clear examples of where judicial officers are required to declare assets and liabilities and we find it unfortunate that the Hon Minister of Justice misled the Parliamentary Committee and in turn Parliament on this matter.”
Lifuka said TIZ was fully alive to the need for the judiciary to be independent of outside influence, particularly from political and economic powers.
“But clearly, judicial independence does not mean that judges and court officials should not be accountable for their actions,” he said.
“Judicial independence is founded on public trust and to maintain this, judges and court officials should uphold the highest standards of integrity. We are aware of the tension that exists between the principles of independence and accountability. As far as we are concerned, however, the judiciary, broadly speaking, like other branches of government, must be accountable directly or indirectly to the general public that it serves.”
Kunda told Parliament last week that the proposed amendments in relation to officers in the judiciary could be easily manipulated and used to scandalise judicial officers whose private and personal affairs would be exposed in the public domain.
He said with the kind of possible abuse, the judiciary as an institution could be destroyed.
He said the Bill was the only one of its kind in the Commonwealth.
The bill seeks to compel judicial officers (Supreme Court and High Court judges, Industrial Relations Court chairpersons, magistrates, and local court justices, etc.) to declare income, assets and liabilities annually with the Judicial Complaints Authority.
Labels: GEORGE KUNDA
posted by MrK @ 6:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home