Maravi

Living in a fool’s paradise

Living in a fool’s paradise
By The Post
Tue 24 Aug. 2010, 04:00 CAT

THERE’S so much rhetoric about the nobility or sacredness of the work of the judiciary. And an impression is being created that it is a sin to criticise or voice out displeasure about the work and conduct of our judges and magistrates.

Those who try to voice out their criticism or displeasure about the way our judiciary is being run are painted black and are sometimes ruthlessly silenced in all sorts of ways. It would seem that to accept and praise everything that the judiciary is doing is divine but to disagree and question anything that they are doing is a crime.

Citizens must praise the judiciary and accept their decisions without question or criticism. And if any criticism is made, it must be in a rhetorical or academic manner – it should have no effect on the way things are done. But anyone who performs a function that affects other people’s lives must be prepared to be accountable to those people. Accountability is a requirement that we normally associate with those who are in elective office such as politicians.

But we make a mistake if we limit the requirement for accountability to politicians. It is good for politicians to be accountable, but it is necessary also that everybody who performs a public function be accountable.

Accountability is an important aspect of any kind of human relations. Even in our homes, we have to be accountable to our families, even to children who are dependent on us. When things are wrong in the home, we have to be prepared to explain to all the affected if we are running a functioning family.

If accountability can be required in a home, how about in the performance of a public function with the importance that the judiciary has? We are saying this because an impression is sometimes created that the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent, is self-regulating and, therefore, not accountable to the public.

This impression is fortified by the tendency of the judiciary to appear insular and insensitive to the demands of the people it is meant to serve. This, as we have said before, is a recipe for disaster. But it is not only the judiciary that seems to believe that being insular is a virtue.

We have seen this same problem with other constitutionally protected offices such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and even the director general of the Anti Corruption Commission. This is the same attitude that we seem to see with the office of the Attorney General. All these offices are meant to serve the people, and in that regard, they should be responsive to the people.

And where they fail to respond favourably to the demands of our people, they must be able to explain in an honest and principled manner why a given demand of the people should not be made. Partisan political considerations are not part of the reasons that a self-respecting servant of the people should use as a foundation for denying the people what is duly theirs.

Public servants must be brought to understand that the supreme test of their words and deeds is whether they conform with the highest interests and enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. Anybody who makes decisions on behalf of the people should not cheat themselves that they are free to do as they please.

They may get away with arbitrariness in the short term but a time always comes when their decisions are subjected to scrutiny; if not by their peers, certainly by history. Public servants, unlike our politicians, should be the most far-sighted, the most self-sacrificing, and the least prejudiced in sizing up situations.

They should set an example in being practical as well as far-sighted. And only far-sightedness can prevent them from losing their bearings in the service of their people.

They should also set an example by at all times being pupils of the masses as well as their teachers. They should never be opinionated or domineering, thinking that they are good in everything while others are good in nothing.

They must listen attentively to the views of the people and let them have their say. If what they say is right, they ought to welcome it, and they should learn from their strong point.

If it is wrong, they should let them finish what they are saying and then patiently explain things to them. There’s a good principle that every self-interested public servant must keep in mind. We don’t mean this in any negative sense. We are talking about being self-interested in a positive sense.

That is being concerned about one’s image and legacy after they have left the office they occupy. That principle is to treat everything that one does as though you are going to be questioned about it by someone who was not involved in your decision making. In other words, when you perform a public function, you must be conscious that other people are going to interrogate everything you have done, criticise it and more often than not, try to find fault with it.

This is the nature of public accountability. And because of this, public servants must be ready at all times to stand up for the truth, because truth is in the interest of the people; public servants must be ready at all times to correct their mistakes, because mistakes are against the interest of the people.

They must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly.

We believe that when the best opinions, the opinions of the most competent men and women, the most capable men and women, are discussed and subjected to open criticism, they are cleansed of their vices, of their errors, of their weaknesses, of their faults.

This is the spirit that moves us to make criticism. We also believe that it is this same spirit that makes many of our people question or criticise the decisions, actions and conduct of their public servants, including those of their adjudicators.

It is therefore not ill will or malice that moves them; or an intention to bring about a change of opinion, to create an unfavourable opinion in regard to any public servant.

On the contrary, no citizen of goodwill would want to expose a good public servant, a judge, a magistrate to blame and to the scorn to which bad methods, bad decisions, bad conduct will expose them.

Criticism is made simply to overcome these bad methods, bad decisions, errors and all the negative things a public servant can do so that they may free themselves from them and deliver efficiently, effectively and in an orderly manner the services our people legitimately expect from them. We might appear to be too harsh in our criticism of public servants. We feel it is necessary to be so; it is healthy to be so.

And rather than be like that woman who they say kept on looking – who the Bible says – kept on looking toward that lake, towards that city which had sunk, and who was changed into a pillar of salt, we must look forward.

We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be changed into a pillar of salt. That is the only proper attitude for us to have, which all honest men and women should have, which all honest public servants should have without reservation of any kind, without regrets of any kind.

Our judges and other public officials who exercise constitutionally protected powers should know that they need to be sensitive to what our people want; they need to mull over things and listen to the people’s feelings.

As we have said, it is not far-fetched to think that a time could come when judge Evans Hamaundu will be asked why he decided the way he did; why he kept quiet about his previous decision.

This kind of accountability is not impossible and it may indeed come. They may spend many sleepless nights trying to find a way to justify this clearly unjustifiable act. But this will be time wasted. The best thing – and the easiest thing – is simply to accept that something seriously wrong has happened and needs to be corrected.

There are also people like Jones Chinyama – that magistrate who decided to convict Frederick Chiluba’s accomplices and acquit him, making inexplicable distinctions between criminal activities that could not be distinguished – who may have to give an account. This is the mind that our public servants need to have. This is the far-sightedness we are talking about.

We have people like Director of Public Prosecutions Chalwe Mchenga, who today cannot explain truthfully what he did in the case of Kashiwa Bulaya. Were he to be challenged on this, we have no doubt that his only defence would be to point an accusing finger at George Kunda.

And also if Mchenga was today to be asked to truthfully explain his withdrawal of the appeal against Chiluba’s acquittal by Chinyama, his only defence would also be to point an accusing finger at Rupiah Banda in addition to George.

Whatever the case, all those who exercise public authority must live in the constant expectation of a day of accountability. Doing otherwise is to live in a fool's paradise.

Labels: CORRUPTION, EVANS HAMAUNDU, JONES CHINYAMA, JUDICIARY

posted by MrK @ 3:34 PM