Maravi

George is an embarrassment to the legal profession

George is an embarrassment to the legal profession
By The Post
Tue 16 Nov. 2010, 03:59 CAT

It is shocking but not surprising that George Kunda can shamelessly stand up and say that he has no regrets for taking Frederick Chiluba’s case to London because all he was doing was following the instructions of his client – the government.

These are the words of a man who at the time of the case going to London occupied the office of Attorney General and Minister for Justice. It is irresponsible for a person holding such offices to act according to any instructions that he or she receives without satisfying themselves that such instructions are correct and legally defensible. But according to George, it was not his duty to make sure that he acted according to public interest. His job was to act according to the wishes of government regardless of whether such wishes were legal or not. How can a man who was responsible for safeguarding public interest be so cavalier and careless about his job? George should not blame us for calling him an opportunist, a chancer who is prepared to sit on his true feelings if that helps him to keep his job.

George would like the nation to believe that being a lawyer, an Attorney General and Minister for Justice is just like being a simple errand boy. This is nonsense. But maybe this is the problem that we have that the people who today occupy such important offices meant to serve public good regard themselves as mere errand boys and girls. They think that they exist to do the wishes of whoever happens to be president. This is how our people have had their interests subordinated to the capricious dictates of the person who happens to be president.

If truly George operated on the basis that he articulated in parliament, then he should be ashamed of himself. And as Michael Sata said the other day, George is not fit to hold public office. We say this because an Attorney General is not like any ordinary lawyer. However, he or she is a chief legal advisor to the government. In that role, he or she is supposed to advise government on whether what they are doing is correct or legal. It is nonsense to suggest that an Attorney General, or indeed any lawyer, acts on any instructions, whether they are right or wrong, legal or illegal. If this is how lawyers operate, then we have to conclude that their conduct is not very different from the criminals that they represent. George is an embarrassment to the legal profession. At the time that the Chiluba matters were being dealt with, he was not only the chief legal advisor to the government, he was also the Minister for Justice. This meant that not only was he the chief legal advisor to the government, he was also the government’s main architect of its legal policies. In other words, on one side he was advising government on the legality and propriety of his legal actions whilst on the other, he was also designing government’s policy on all matters of justice and legal affairs. How could such a person turn around today and say he merely did what his client wanted? The implication of this statement is that George did not have to agree with the government’s policies on justice and legal affairs nor did he have to approve the legal actions that government engaged in. This is nonsense. We say this because no legal action can be commenced in our courts which the Attorney General did not approve. If, however, he did not agree, why did he decide to keep quiet at the time only to tell us today that he was merely carrying out instructions? This is why we say that George is irresponsible.

What George represents in our politics is very shameful and unacceptable. It is the kind of politics that can never move our people forward. It would be unfortunate enough if George was the only one who believed and behaved in the way that he is talking. But that is not the case. George represents an opportunistic breed of politics that has no real interests in the needs of our people. This type of politics does not care about whether our people receive medical care or not or whether our children are educated or not. This type of politician is satisfied if he or she can remain at the helm of our politics and look after their interests. To do this, they have to make sure that they sing their boss’ song and do so the loudest. They have accepted the notion that the only way to survive in politics is to be a bootlicker. If Levy Mwanawasa is championing the fight against corruption, pretend to be with him. But if Rupiah Banda comes out and shows that he will not entertain a spirited fight against corruption, join him in defence of the thieves. It does not matter that under Levy, the same person was, at least, in the public a spirited fighter against corruption, now it pays to be a defender of the corrupt.

Unless our country finds a way of doing away with this kind of politics and the politicians that represent it, we will not go far in our development. We will remain bogged down in poverty, disease, hunger and other deplorable vices that result from such malaise. It is totally unacceptable that the person who was responsible for designing and taking to Cabinet the policies and strategies for implementing and administering justice and legal affairs can today say he was just a passenger. How could somebody who was chief legal advisor to the government say that his advice was based on what the client wanted?

There is no doubt that George was one of the very few close political allies, family friends and confidants of Levy. It is difficult to think of many ministers or other government officers who were closer to Levy than George was. Levy made many decisions, including some very wrong ones, on the strength of the advice and influence of George. We have not forgotten that Levy’s mess in the Kashiwa Bulaya case was driven by George’s ill-conceived advice. Levy made a public pronouncement to the effect that he had received advice from George on the matter which he accepted. It is a well-known fact that George was a big influence in Levy’s government. It is not true that he did not take personal interest in these matters. George was clearly angry when a special Cabinet meeting overruled him and directed that the Bulaya case continue in court. George cannot tell us today that he has no personal interests in the cases he was handling.

Who does not know that George has been micro-managing the constitutional review process? The whole National Constitutional Conference was George’s mouthpiece. Nothing got approved in the National Constitutional Conference which George didn’t approve. We hope that in future, George will not say that he was merely following instructions of his client.

The same can be said about George’s behaviour on the removal of the abuse of office clause from the Anti Corruption Commission Act. It is very clear that George has pushed this agenda relentlessly. Sometimes it is difficult to know who is more eager to take out that law – Rupiah or George. Whatever the case, George has not spared any effort in ensuring that this law is done away with. We hope that he will not turn around when things change and tell the nation that he was merely carrying out Rupiah’s instructions.

It is very difficult for us to believe that George is being driven by any principle or virtue meant to benefit our people. His actions seem driven by vanity, greed for power, control and other privileges that come with it. But it is said that all that goes around comes around.

Labels: FREDERICK CHILUBA, GEORGE KUNDA, NG'ANDU MAGANDE

posted by MrK @ 6:05 AM