Maravi

Punish corruption harshly

Punish corruption harshly
By Editor
Tuesday January 22, 2008 [03:00]

The call by President Levy Mwanawasa for harsh punishment on people convicted of corruption is welcome.

But we don't think this is really a matter that can be determined solely by our judges. Yes, it cannot be denied that generally judges do have some discretion in what type of punishment they can hand down to a person convicted of a crime. Actually some of our laws do clearly set out the type of punishment for particular types of crime and the minimum and maximum sentences for such crimes.

It will make the work of our judges much easier if our legislatures, who include President Mwanawasa, do in the first place come up with punishment they would consider harsh enough for people convicted of corruption and clearly determine the minimum and maximum sentences for such crimes.

In this way they would be sure that even if our judges exercise some leniency, the punishment will still be harsh enough. Without doing so, everything will be left to the discretion of judges and in some cases to judicial activisism.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of legislation if our fight against corruption is to succeed. Our laws still make it very difficult to convict people accused of corruption crimes.

The procedures for prosecuting a person who has stolen billions of kwacha from state coffers is not very different from that of a Mr Speedwell Mupuchi who at night stole a chicken from Mr Bivan Saluseki's backyard.

Even the sentence may not be that much different. Of course both are crimes - theft is theft. But the impact, the consequences of each of these crimes differ. Mr Saluseki's loss of a chicken may affect him and his household for a day or two and end there.

But for the one who stole billions of kwacha from public coffers, the consequences will go far beyond - it may deprive people on Chilubi Island access to the necessary malaria medication resulting in the death of many people.

It may also deprive some people in Kalabo of the necessary access to ARVs. People in Kapiri Mposhi may be deprived of access to clean drinking water and so on and so forth. This being the case, why should the two crimes be treated in the same way and handed almost similar types of punishment?

It is this lack of differentiation that has frustrated our country's fight against corruption.

Plunderers of public funds are not treated in a different way from a backyard chicken thief like Mr Mupuchi. This is why the Zambian people are complaining at the slow pace at which high profile corruption cases are being handled in our courts of law. Clearly, the problem is not our magistrates or judges; it is the system and the law behind it.

Therefore, if we sincerely believe that corruption is such a serious offence then there is need to upgrade it to the status of other very serious crimes like treason and treat it as such. And if necessary, there may be need to look at the possibility of setting up special courts for such crimes.

Surely, if we really believe that corruption is such a serious crime, we cannot continue to treat those facing corruption charges, those who have stolen billions of tax-payers money in the same way as petty chicken thieves.

Trying to do so does not only demoralise citizens who are willing to fight corruption but it also causes an unnecessary strain on our courts and stress on our bench.

It would therefore be better for President Mwanawasa to push his government to initiate the necessary legislation that would make it mandatory for people convicted of corruption to receive harsh punishment.

Yes, judges can help to mete out harsh punishment where the law gives them the discretion and where they find it justifiable to do so. But there's a limit on how far they can go and what they can do. Moreover, what is a harsh punishment to people convicted of corruption?

Where is it defined and who has defined it? It will be better for President Mwanawasa and his fellow legislators to give the judiciary a proper definition of what they deem a harsh punishment for people convicted of corruption.

Of course, whatever definition they come up with, it will be subject to the interpretation of our courts - but the definition will always remain theirs. This is the only way the nation, through our courts, will show those convicted of corruption that it doesn't pay to be corrupt.

We will also need clear and strict laws that deal with property obtained from proceeds of corruption. We need laws that will make it easy for the prosecution to ensure that the fruits of corruption are not used to escape conviction.

As things stand today, those convicted of corruption still have access to their loot and they use that to hire the most expensive lawyers and sometimes to corrupt witnesses.

The law should be strengthened to ensure that those who have stolen public funds do not use the same funds to defend themselves or to frustrate the course of justice.

We have to do everything possible, legislatively or otherwise, to ensure that the many and grave ills that are prevalent in our body politic, economic and social spheres are subjected to the sternest war. And there's urgent necessity for this. There should be relentless attack upon every evil man whether politician or businessman, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life.

These should be attacked with merciless severity. Those who betray public trust by engaging in corruption, by raping the nation don't deserve to be spared when it comes to punishment.

There should be a resolute effort to hunt them and ensure they are harshly punished. Every effort must be made to ensure that we rid our government of corruption.

We say this because a government by corrupt elements, thieves no matter how intelligent and efficient they may be in other respects, is just as dangerous as a government by organised mob.

Labels: CORRUPTION

posted by MrK @ 6:21 AM