Maravi

Rupiah and Kunda are fighting for their right to be corrupt

Rupiah and Kunda are fighting for their right to be corrupt
By The Post
Fri 01 Oct. 2010, 04:00 CAT

The decision to remove the offence of abuse of office from the Anti Corruption Commission Act is a serious dereliction of duty by Rupiah Banda. This decision, more than any other decision that Rupiah has taken since coming to power, demonstrates his recklessness and lack of respect for public accountability.

We say this is Rupiah’s decision because there is no way such an important and significant policy shift can take place without the blessing of the president himself. We know that minions such as George Kunda have worked hard to achieve this departure from common decency.

But still, Rupiah as President must take full responsibility for his government’s decision to legalise corruption, abuse of public office and plunder of public resources. This is what the removal of section 37 from the Anti Corruption Commission Act amounts to.

Rupiah and his chief of propaganda, of lies and half-truths Ronnie Shikapwasha would like our people to believe that they have not done anything serious. And yesterday in the state-owned and government-controlled newspaper, the Zambia Daily Mail, Shikapwasha said that “the abuse of office offence is still law under the Penal Code and anybody found wanting would be charged by the ACC”.

This is stupid and a deliberate attempt to mislead our people. If Shikapwasha is so desperate to keep his job that he has no shame in telling lies and half-truths, he should at least learn to shut up when he doesn’t understand the issues that are being discussed. A man of his age should not allow himself to be used as a cheap Chinese-manufactured plastic vuvuzela that will blow any tune regardless of what it means or stands for. If Shikapwasha wants to comment effectively and intelligently on the law, he should do what many of us have done: go and learn some law and subject himself to the discipline of learning and understanding the things he wants to comment on. The issue at hand is not a subject about which cheap political points should be scored. There is a serious matter at hand. What Rupiah and George are forcing through Parliament is a law that allows thieves and corrupt elements to get away with their loot with impunity.

The offence of abuse of office was included in the Anti Corruption Commission Act because there was a realisation that public officers, by the functions that they perform, are open to all sorts of vice and acts of self-enrichment that are contrary to public interests. The people who occupy public offices exercise significant duties in trust for the people. They decide where and how the resources that are supposed to provide services for our people are going to be spent. This type of decision making provides opportunities and temptation for corruption and other acts of self-enrichment that deny our people services. The thinkers around the question of corruption have realised that proving corruption per se is not always an easy undertaking. This is because corruption, like prostitution, is a crime that involves collusion among satisfied parties. It is very different from the common thefts covered by the Penal Code. The one who receives the bribe is happy that he or she has received the bribe. The giver of the bribe or other benefit to a public officer is also satisfied that they have received the benefit for which they paid the bribe. In this situation, although the public loses something, there is usually no one to complain. This is because the parties who are involved in the transaction are both satisfied and keep quiet. It is because of this that international thinking has developed which has given rise to provisions such as section 37 of the Anti Corruption Commission Act which Rupiah and George want to destroy.

What this government wants Parliament to do is akin to allowing thieves to defend their rights to steal from ordinary citizens. The law against abuse of office exists to stop public servants from amassing wealth at the expense of the public. But now Rupiah wants to be able to amass inexplicable wealth without being held accountable. This is what this is all about. The Anti Corruption Commission Act allowed the ACC to prosecute any public officer who, after due investigation, was found to have misused or abused his office, position or authority to obtain advantage, wealth, property or profit directly or indirectly. This is the law that Rupiah wants removed from our statute books. Why should a person who swore to serve our people want to legalise theft and plunder of public resources by himself and other public officers?

Rupiah wants the nation to accept that it is okay for a person who occupies a public office to misuse his office, position or authority to acquire property or other profit. What kind of nonsense is this? They are even trying to mislead our people that the Anti Corruption Commission Act provision on abuse of office is the same as the Penal Code provision under section 99. They know that this is incorrect. The provision of abuse of office under section 99 deals with acts that have to be shown to have been prejudicial to the state while the Anti Corruption Commission Act goes further. And because it is an Anti Corruption Act, it rightly raises the standard of responsibility for public officers. It does not merely deal with simple abuse. It deals with at least three other offences that the Penal Code does not deal with under the heading “abuse of office”. Apart from the misuse of an office, this Act also criminalises a public officer’s maintenance of a standard of living that is above his present or past emoluments. The reason for this law is very clear: corrupt elements are very sophisticated. It is not always possible to know how and where they are abusing their office but it is often possible to see the results of their criminal living. This is why the law criminalises a public officer’s maintenance of a standard of living that is above his earnings or explainable income. The other aspect of abuse of office which Rupiah and his minions are removing from the law is the offence that prohibits public officers from being in control or possession of financial resources or property disproportionate to their present or past legitimate earnings. Again, the reason for this is very clear: a person who works for the government should not have financial resources that cannot be explained. Indeed, this makes sense even for every citizen. We should all be able to explain our resources. But this is more critical for public servants. For example, there are some of our people who preside over the awarding of all sorts of contracts involving gigantic sums of money. Those contracts that they award are not private matters. We, as taxpayers and citizens of this country, pay them to do that job. It is wrong for them to rig to our detriment the process by which those contracts are awarded so that they get this or that personal benefit. A typical example is what seems to have been happening in the road sector, where huge contracts have been given for the construction of roads. It is also clear that huge sums of money have been paid. But the quality of roads that are being constructed in many cases do not justify the amounts of money paid. And our people are left to wonder why.

Against this background, is it not reasonable for our people to expect an explanation from public officers who are engaged in giving these contracts when they are found to be controlling huge personal assets that are not commensurate with their legitimate earnings? But what Rupiah and George are telling our people is that they should not be interested to know why officers who presided over shoddy public works should be living beyond their earned income. This law that Rupiah wants removed also stops public officers from receiving any benefit or services which can be interpreted as being corruptly given. For instance, if the contractor who is working on the Mfuwe-Chipata road is somehow also busy working on Rupiah’s farm for no pay or contributing to his election campaign funds, our people have a right to know why such things are happening. But Rupiah, George and the likes of Shikapwasha are telling our people that it is none of their business to ensure that their leaders don’t compromise public interest because of personal interest. This is nonsense and will never be accepted. It is not long ago that Mike Mulongoti, the other Chinese-manufactured plastic vuvuzela, was defending the right of public officers to do business with government whilst occupying public offices. If they are such good businessmen and women, why should they cling on to government jobs? What successful businesses have they run anyway before they got into government? We should all be worried when thieves, corrupt elements and all sorts of unscrupulous elements begin to fight for the right to abuse their offices with impunity. Who are they? Why should our people accept to be abused by elements who are supposed to be their servants? What Rupiah and his minions are doing is fighting for the right to be corrupt without consequences.

What they are trying to do is similar to what they have done for Frederick Chiluba except this time round, they want to legislate their own getaway from their criminal activities. This is not sustainable. And we make a clarion call to our people to do everything possible to stop this broad daylight banditry.

Labels: ACC, CORRUPTION, GEORGE KUNDA, RUPIAH BANDA

posted by MrK @ 6:31 AM