Maravi

Don’t fear tribunals

Don’t fear tribunals
Written by Editor

Mike Mulongoti’s frustrations are understandable. There is clearly a need to distinguish between the mistakes of an honest person and the criminal acts of a crook, a thief, a corrupt politician or public servant.

Mulongoti says ministers are now afraid to make decisions because of tribunals, decision making by ministers has now been criminalised in society and this has hampered their efficiency because everything is now being referred to permanent secretaries to make decisions.

“We are now criminalising decision making, a permanent secretary makes decisions for everybody because nobody wants to make decisions, because they are potential jail birds. Everything is being referred to the permanent secretaries. When I look at permanent secretaries, I look at potential jail birds.” This is the frustration Mulongoti is going through. He may have a point but there is need to look at how and why things may be this way.

Many polls that have been conducted in this country have continued to show diminishing levels of public trust in politicians, public servants. And this too should be understandable. How can the Zambian people be expected to trust their politicians and public servants after the betrayal by Frederick Chiluba and those around him?

This government is today trying to register a judgment from the London High Court obtained against Chiluba and others who worked with him when he was president of this country. It was found that Chiluba stole, abused public funds and he has been asked to repay that money to the Zambian government. And this is why the government is today seeking to register that judgment so that what Chiluba stole from the Zambian people can be recovered from whatever he has in this country.

We also have very senior public officers who are either in jail or on bail pending appeal for stealing public funds, for abusing public office. How can the Zambian people be expected to blindly trust public officers or servants given all this experience?

There is nothing to fear about tribunals. This is very good law which has not been abused in any way by our people and those administering it. This law – the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act – under which tribunals are convened has been around for close to 15 years now. And so far, only three cases have been investigated under this Act. The first one was against Remmy Mushota who tried to use his office to steal K210 million from a government account at Bank of Zambia just before the Easter holidays of that year. This was followed by a tribunal against Peter Machungwa, Golden Mandandi and Katele Kalumba for diverting K2 billion from government coffers to finance the MMD. And the current one against Dora Siliya is the third in a decade and half of the existence of this law. This is not to say the Chief Justice does not receive complaints under this law. Many complaints are raised with the Chief Justice but only those which are not frivolous and meet the required criteria end in a tribunal. Probably this explains why the first two tribunals found those complained against, except Katele, wanting.

This being the case, why should ministers be afraid to make decisions because of tribunals? There are clearly laid down procedures for how government decisions should be made. The duties and rights of ministers are also clearly laid down. And the responsibilities and powers of permanent secretaries are also clearly laid down in the procedures of government. And in the whole process, there is no room for arbitrariness. We are not saying the system that is there is perfect or has no deficiencies. We are merely acknowledging the fact that there is a system, there are procedures for public policy decision making. There are laws, rules or regulations that stipulate how a public policy is put in place from conception, adoption, implementation, through to monitoring and evaluation. And the roles of ministers and permanent secretaries in all this are clearly spelt out. This being the case, why should there be a problem, why should ministers be afraid to play that role that legitimately should be played by them?

Clearly, the problem arises out of the desire by ministers to play roles that the law has not assigned to their offices but to the permanent secretaries and their staff. It is the attempt by ministers, for good or bad reasons, to play the roles of permanent secretaries that is a source of all these problems and frustrations. If ministers want to perform functions that today belong to permanent secretaries, they should do so by changing the law and not by arbitrary actions. Truly, we have situations where very good ministers are being let down by the performance of inept and corrupt permanent secretaries. But the solution to this is not for the minister to arbitrarily take over the functions of the permanent secretaries. This is lawlessness. And this is what may lead to tribunals because it is against the law.

If a minister is acting within the law, there will be no reason for them to fear making decisions. Even if they were to make mistakes while acting in an honest manner, without any corrupt motives, there would be nothing to fear. Of course in public life, no one gets away with anything. In more civilised societies, those who are failed by their judgments are often forced to resign their positions in government. Just yesterday, there was a news item on BBC of a senior security officer who resigned his position because of the wrong decision he made in the handling of suspected Pakistani militants. He paid the price for making a wrong decision. This is what accountability in public service entails.

And moreover, public servants use resources that don’t belong to them, that belong to the public and therefore the levels of accountability need to be very high.

And tribunals are not just constituted anyhow. The Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct spells very clearly what constitutes a breach of conduct for a tribunal to be constituted. We don’t see how any of the provisions of section 4 of the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct would make ministers fear to make decisions and hamper their efficiency. Being asked to work within the confines of the law is not criminalising the decisions of ministers.

When one critically examines the whole issue, it’s not difficult to see that the problems arise from decisions pertaining to procurement of goods and services for the government, to spending public money. We see a struggle here between ministers and permanent secretaries on who should actually spend that money, who should make this or that decision. But again the law lays out these procedures very clearly. The role of ministers in procurement is not obscure. It is as clear as the midday sun over the Barotse flood plains. The problem may be that ministers want to do a bit more than the law permits them. Again, this may be for good reasons. But the law doesn’t permit it.

There appears to be a tendency to confuse our daily, household-type, decisions with the processes and considerations which should permeate government decision making. We label perfect legitimate decisions as “corrupt” – and totally corrupt procedures as “legal” or merely “legitimate”, because this is what was decreed by the statal mechanisms, or because “this is the law”.

There are many problems with public procurement. At least this is the public image of these expenditures. True, some ministers abuse public money in all sorts of ways. It could be to favour their cronies and relatives or for their own direct personal benefit. These two plagues – cronyism and nepotism – haunt public procurement. The spectra of government officials using public money to benefit their political allies or their family members – haunts public imagination and provokes public indignation. Then, there are problems of plain corruption: bribes or commissions paid to those who control the expenditure – be they ministers or permanent secretaries. And today, there are people in our country who have been convicted by our courts of law over such issues. So public fear or suspicion is not totally unfounded.

But again, Mulongoti’s concerns should not be dismissed. We have had problems in our country in leaving all these functions to permanent secretaries. There are more permanent secretaries today who have been convicted or are in our courts of law for corruption, for abuse of public funds. Therefore, how our country’s very limited financial resources should be spent is a matter of concern for any serious minded politician. A procurement decision reflects a political preference and priority. Where there is money, there is a possibility of wrongdoing. Humans are humans – and sometimes not even that. But these unfortunate derivatives of social activity can be minimised by adherence to laid down procedures in procurement and to refining those procedures if they are found wanting; and to transparent public decision-making processes with the right mix of supervision, auditing and prosecution. Good rules are necessary but not always enough to curb corruption. It is therefore important to have clear and publicly available procedures so that the public can also participate in monitoring what is going on, what is being done on their behalf. As we have stated before, the most potent weapon against corruption, abuse of public resources is an informed public. The spending of public funds through all sorts of procurements is one of the areas most prone to corruption. And corruption in procurement affects the efficiency of public spending, creates waste and, ultimately, affects the quality of public services and the opportunities they present to improve quality of life. Corruption also harms companies that produce goods and services as it increases operational costs, reduces competitiveness and, in the medium term, is not good business.

Labels: CORRUPTION, MIKE MULONGOTI

posted by MrK @ 5:02 AM