Corruption in the judiciary
By Editor
Monday July 14, 2008 [04:00]
TO begin with, we would like to refer to a saying of Lenin, that the attitude – that is to say, the seriousness of purpose – of any institution or organisation is measured, basically, by the attitude it takes towards its own problems, deficiencies or inadequacies, errors and so on and so forth. And in the same way, the seriousness of purpose of our judiciary will be measured by the attitude it takes towards its weaknesses.
Of course, the critics of our judiciary, those hostile towards it, will always be alert to make political capital out of those publicly admitted weaknesses. When weaknesses arise and are not admitted and subjected to self-criticism, critics of all hues take advantage of them. When weaknesses arise and are admitted and subjected to self-criticism, they may be used by hostile people, but in a very different way.
This is because in the former case, the weaknesses would not be corrected, would not be overcome while in the latter case, they would be. That is why we feel the decision taken by our judiciary to publicly admit its weaknesses, to recognise the presence of corruption among some of its members, especially among magistrates, interpreters and other support staff is a big step forward in overcoming these vices.
This forthright and serious attitude towards weaknesses is not a weakness but a strength of our judiciary. It should give us a lot of confidence in our judiciary because it clearly demonstrates that there are still many good people in this institution who deserve our understanding and support in their efforts to cleanse our judiciary of its vices.
Judge Dennis Chirwa has been very honest in his analysis of corruption in the judiciary. It is true that there is so much talk about interpreters and other support staff being used to solicit and collect bribes on behalf of magistrates.
And this talk is tarnishing the name of the judiciary and bringing down its standing among our people. It is not fair to allow an institution with so many good and decent officers to acquire such a bad reputation, to be discredited in this way. The great majority of our magistrates are decent human beings, struggling to survive like many other Zambians with similar earnings, living totally on their earned income.
But as Judge Chirwa has correctly pointed out, there are a few rotten eggs in the judiciary that are tarnishing the names of their colleagues who are doing an honest job, living within their means as dictated by their earned income. However, rotten things cannot be kept in the same basket as the good ones without contaminating, without tarnishing the latter’s names. And it is for this reason that corruption in the judiciary should be fought with all the tenacity that can be marshalled.
The judiciary is an institution that thrives on not only being fair, just and corruption-free, but also on being seen or believed to be so. Here, public perception is important. And that’s why it is dangerous for anyone to unjustifiably tarnish the name of any officer of the judiciary, especially that of a magistrate or a judge.
The observations and advice made and given by Judge Chirwa deserve serious consideration if we are to succeed in our national fight against corruption and in our efforts to establish a more just, fair and humane society in our country.
Judge Chirwa has urged “magistrates not to take bribes because they blind the eyes of the wise and subvert the cause of righteousness”. We all know what bribes can do. Bribes make even wise men blind to the truth, and prevent them from being honest in their dealings,
assessments and decisions.
We have seen for ourselves under the ten years of the Chiluba regime what damage corruption can do to a country. Who can disagree with Judge Chirwa’s observation that “corruption did not only distort the economy by making business and life expensive, but that it perpetuated poverty in society”?
Truly, corruption has done a lot of injustice to the judiciary and it is important that all citizens of goodwill join in the fight against this vice. Our national fight against corruption will not succeed if corruption is not eliminated from our courts of law, especially our magistrates’ courts.
This is where corruption cases start. And it doesn’t matter who is involved or what amounts have been stolen; all corruption cases start here – in the magistrates’ courts.
Therefore, if corruption cases are handled by corrupt magistrates, our chances of succeeding in our fight against corruption will remain very low. Our magistrates’ courts are very important in the fight against corruption and other crimes, and we must pay a great deal of attention to their operations and administration.
Everything possible should be done to ensure that our magistrates strictly adhere to the judicial code of conduct. We should also ensure that the conditions of service for our judicial staff are reasonable and enable them to live an honest life, to survive on earned income in line with their station in life.
And whatever the problems, we urge our magistrates to desist from corruption and live honest lives – crime does not pay.
We also appeal to those who pay bribes to our judicial officers to stop doing so. Whatever advantages they may gain from getting favourable decisions by bribing court officials are outweighed by the damage they are doing to their country that will come to haunt them tomorrow.
We say this because tomorrow they will probably have to face the same corrupt judiciary from a weaker point and unfairly be sent to jail. Corruption is a double-edged sword – it can save you today but chop you to pieces tomorrow. Let us “eliminate that human greed of accumulating dishonest wealth”.
The judiciary cannot afford to have corrupt elements in its ranks, let alone take a neutral stand against corruption. We say this because the fight against corruption will not succeed if the judiciary is not part of it. The judiciary must be part of the fight against corruption if we are to harbour any hope of defeating this dangerous vice.
Labels: CORRUPTION, DENNIS CHIRWA, JUDICIARY
Read more...
Judiciary must win the fight against corruption - judge Chirwa
By Abigail Chaponda in Ndola
Monday July 14, 2008 [04:05]
SUPREME Court judge Dennis Chirwa has said the judiciary must win the fight against corruption. And justice Chirwa urged magistrates not to take bribes because they blind the eyes of the wise and subvert the cause of the righteous. Justice Chirwa, who was representing Deputy Chief Justice Ireen Mambilima during the official opening of a workshop on corruption for magistrates in Ndola last Friday, said the judiciary could not afford to take a neutral stand in the fight against corruption.
Justice Chirwa said it would be naive to deny the existence of corruption in the country and in the judiciary.
"We must be part of the fight against corruption," he said.
Justice Chirwa admitted that there were many complaints received that interpreters and other support staff were used to solicit and collect bribes on behalf of the magistrates.
He said that it was the duty of magistrates to see that junior staff upheld law and order quickly because any delay could indirectly tarnish the name of the judiciary and its standing.
"I regret to state that some prosecutors seem to derive pleasure in adjournments by giving the same old story of 'I have no witnesses'. Please, stop that and let justice prevail," he said.
Justice Chirwa said corruption did not only distort the economy by making business and life expensive but that it perpetuated poverty in society.
He said corruption did a lot of injustice to the judiciary and that it was important that they had joined in the fight against the vice.
"As magistrates, you should strictly adhere to the judicial code of conduct. Eliminate that human greed of accumulating dishonest wealth. You cannot say one thing in court and then later alter the record to fit the circumstances of bribery. Desist from corruption," he said.
Justice Chirwa said there was need to continuously learn about corruption so that the judiciary could be aware of the modern trends and how to fight it.
Justice Chirwa also urged the public not to expect a magistrate to help them in prosecuting their cases because it was not the role of the court.
Labels: CORRUPTION, DENNIS CHIRWA, JUDICIARY
Read more...
We can't be neutral on corruption - Sakala
By Laura Mushaukwa
Saturday May 10, 2008 [04:00]
CHIEF Justice Ernest Sakala has said corruption exists in the Judiciary and the country at large. Officiating at a magistrates’ workshop organised by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) at Cresta Golf View Hotel yesterday, justice Sakala disclosed that every sitting of the Judicial Service Commission dealt with no less than five to ten disciplinary cases involving Judiciary staff in corruption-related matters.
"The importance of these workshops/seminars on corruption cannot be belittled. For me, it would be naïve on my part to deny that there is no corruption in the country and in the Judiciary itself," justice Sakala said. "What these workshops intend to achieve therefore, and I hope and believe they will achieve, is to bring to the fore what corruption is, what form it may take.
“These workshops are intended to sharpen our understanding of corruption particularly that the offence has now become complex and is committed by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated methods.”
Justice Sakala said corruption was one of the biggest deterrents to growth and poverty reduction in Zambia.
“Fighting corruption demands a clear understanding and appreciation of its effects on the society as a whole. As a judiciary, we cannot afford to take a neutral stand. We must be part of the cure of fighting corruption,” justice Sakala said.
He highlighted the negative impact that corruption has on a country.
“We all know what corruption can do to the country and we know what it has done in some countries. It not only distorts the economy by making businesses expensive, makes life expensive and perpetuates poverty in society,” justice Sakala said.
“In relation to our institution, corruption does a lot of injustice and scratches the very mirror of which we are in society.”
Justice Sakala advised magistrates against taking bribes saying bribes blind the eye of the wise, thereby subverting the cause of the righteous.
He said corruption in the judiciary could take the form of fraud, deliberate misplacement of court records, altering of records and deciding matters based on influence and not evidence.
He revealed that corruption in the judiciary could also take the form of improper socialisation with the parties to the case.
“Delay may make you to unwittingly come into social contact with litigants and undue influence may be exerted,” said justice Sakala. “We are all too familiar with the phrase justice delayed is justice denied.”
Justice Sakala said the foundation of corruption was human greed and the desire to accumulate wealth dishonestly.
He said human greed was the foundation as the insatiable need for wealth became so strong that it defeated the strongly held ethical principles.
“Talking of accumulation of wealth, we all know our salaries but is what we own commensurate with our salaries? We have heard of junior staff owning huge mansions in some townships, yet they obtained no loan,” Justice Sakala said.
He stressed the need for people to be content with what they had, saying they would be more blessed that way.
“As magistrates, you should strictly adhere to the Judicial Code of Conduct, eliminate that human greed of accumulating dishonest wealth. You cannot say one thing in open court and then later alter the record to fit the circumstances of bribery,” justice Sakala advised.
He said the lack of a conducive working environment and poor conditions of service should not be used as a defence for corruption.
“I appreciate that we do not have the best conditions of service or the best conducive working environment but lack or absence of these facilities will not be a defence to corruption,” said justice Sakala.
“With our limited budget, we have nevertheless tried to improve in certain areas. For instance, we have purchased or are purchasing a vehicle for each principal resident magistrates’ court for circulating in each province and for ensuring adequate revenue collection.”
Labels: CORRUPTION, ERNEST SAKALA, JUDICIARY
Read more...
Sata calls for changes to judges' retirement age
By Amos Malupenga
Monday April 21, 2008 [04:00]
PATRIOTIC Front president Michael Sata has called for the amendment of the law to do away with age restriction for Supreme Court judges if they are to truly act independently. Announcing his decision to withdraw his appeal before the Supreme Court in the matter where he is accused of defaming President Levy Mwanawasa, Sata said he saw no reason to continue with the appeal when a lower court has insisted on proceeding with trial. He said it would be a mockery of justice to continue with the appeal.
Sata had asked the High Court to quash the indictment against him for allegedly being defective and also called on the court to look at the constitutional issues surrounding the matter.
But the High Court threw out Sata's application for lack of merit and ordered his quick trial. However, Sata appealed before a single judge of the Supreme Court who also dismissed the appeal.Later, Sata allegedly appealed before the full bench of the Supreme Court.
When the matter came up before principal resident magistrate Kafunda, Sata's lawyers - who included former attorney general Bonaventure Mutale - argued that the magistrate's court could not continue with the matter because there was an appeal before the Supreme Court.
But magistrate Kafunda, in his ruling, dismissed this application saying Sata's lawyers did not show evidence that there was an appeal before the Supreme Court because what was there was only a notice to appeal without, even, grounds of appeal.
Magistrate Kafunda said it was regrettable that senior lawyers like Mutale who is even state counsel could mislead the court.
On the other hand, Sata has insisted there was an appeal before the Supreme Court arguing that there was no way a former attorney general could mislead the court.
He said in an interview that while it was true that the Judiciary was a mirror of justice, justice is never delivered when the mirror is darkened. "When there are so many impediments, the mirror of justice is darkened and fails to give that justice," Sata said.
He said there was need to change the law by removing age restriction, which seems to be putting most judges in a crisis of uncertainty.
Sata said before independence, Zambia faced a crisis of expectation, which affected all blacks, and a crisis of uncertainty, which was not as serious as the first one because the Judiciary, the defence and security were not in the hands of blacks.
Sata said there was need to look at constitutional amendments that did not only cement the desires of politicians.
"Today, we don't need age limit for judges of the Supreme Court so that they don't suffer from uncertainty," he said. "The majority of judges in our Supreme Court have reached that age the retirement age of 65.
Unless they play ball with the appointing authority, they will not get that contract to extend their stay on the bench. In this way, we don't expect judges to be impartial. And without impartiality from the Judiciary, you can as well forget about good governance. So if we can't do away with age restriction, let us increase it from the current 65 to 75 as the retiring age so that our judges do not suffer from a crisis of uncertainty.
These people have nothing else to do after retiring especially that the same law restricting their age does not allow them to practice after leaving the bench. So they have to play ball with the appointing authority or else they will not get that contract extended."
Labels: JUDICIARY, SATA
Read more...
Lawyers unfit to practice worry Chief Justice Sakala
By Maluba Jere
Friday March 21, 2008 [03:00]
CHIEF Justice Ernest Sakala has expressed concern at the growing number of young lawyers that are not proper and fit to practice law in Zambia. And Chief Justice Sakala has told legal practitioners to expect to be criticised and attacked harshly for the decisions they make. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Sakala has regretted the growing gap existing between the bench and the legal profession.
Officially opening a one-day Access to Justice Bar-Bench conference held at Protea Hotel in Chisamba yesterday, Chief Justice Sakala wondered whether the young lawyers were being properly scrutinised before being recommended for admission to the Bar.
“At times I get baffled when I read some of the recommendations for admission to the Bar,” he said. “Perhaps time has come that we should follow up advocates who make improper recommendations; when they should know that a particular character is not a fit and suitable person for admission.”
He acknowledged having received complaints from some senior members of the legal profession that some adjudicators had or were not conducting themselves professionally in and outside court.
And Chief Justice Sakala said as long as legal practitioners continued serving in the arena for resolving contentious battles over emotionally charged issues of politics, business transactions, tribalism and crime; they should expect to be criticised.
“As Lord Denning once said, “we do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. It is the right of every man to make fair comment, even outspoken comment on matters of public interest,” he said. “It is also true that fair criticism of judges may identify defects in the judicial system and protect the cause of justice. But the criticism or comments must be fair and not made in bad taste.”
He said the conference was an opportunity to find lasting solutions to problems besetting the justice system and urged the legal practitioners not to allow anything erode people’s confidence in the Judiciary and legal system.
Justice Sakala also said the success of the legal profession in its noble role of maintaining the rule of law was equally dependent on a strong and independent Bench.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Sakala said the growing gap between the Bench and legal profession had affected the general practice and standards being exhibited in the justice delivery system.
“I strongly feel that non-interaction and consultation among ourselves has greatly contributed to the lowered standards being experienced,” he said. “Indifference and failure to communicate with opposing counsel in a matter has derailed many hearings resulting in increased costs and time wasting. In my view, some disputes can be resolved by simply lawyers talking to each other without rushing to court.”
He further said he had noted a growing tendency by some lawyers who storm out of the courtroom seemingly in annoyance after receiving a verdict not in their favour.
“If the commitment of the profession is to the cause of justice, then such behavior is not only unprofessional but undesirable,” he said. “Professional good manners demand that every lawyer must, at the end of any hearing, regardless of the outcome of a case, show courtesy to the court. What has happened to the much venerated phrase ‘much obliged’ if I may ask?”
Justice Sakala said complaints from the public about the slow pace of disposing of cases was genuine but explained that the Judiciary was currently working at improving staffing levels and training the existing staff.
“On the other hand, as a bench, I stand here to admit that indeed our own house has not always been in order. Some of our adjudicators do not put their best,” he said. “I have repeatedly said that as head of the Judiciary, it pains me when I read or hear comments coming from the public complaining about the slow pace at which cases are moving and complaints on delayed judgments. I have also come to accept that these comments and complaints are genuine and as a judiciary we cannot ignore them.”
Meanwhile, Law Association of Zambia president Elijah Banda said the manner in which advocates of the court conducted themselves before court had a bearing on the quality of justice dispensed by the courts.
Banda said he stood charged and guilty for the unnecessary adjournments to court cases.
“We’ve been discussing this issue for a number of years and we are concerned that there are no improvements,” said Chief Justice Sakala. “Sometimes we advocates get shocked that a long awaited judgment is just a page or two.”
Labels: COURTS, JUDICIARY, RICHARD SAKALA
Read more...
Zambia can solve its energy crisis
By Kaping'a Smogy Isaac Lusaka
Wednesday March 12, 2008 [03:00]
The article which appeared in your paper of Monday March 10, 2008 in which the government was blaming the World Bank and loading the consequences on its wagon for having misled the country on the energy crisis made very sad reading.
I can’t believe that after about 44 years of political independence, and having dealt with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for many years, we still seem not to know and understand the dealings and policies of the two financial institutions.
Zambia, a very peaceful and beautiful nation endowed with plenty of rivers and falls, is capable of solving the energy chaos given the educated and trained human resource the country has.
As a sovereign state, we were supposed to be making our own independent and viable decisions which suit our own setup rather than be “yes bwanas” to bad foreign policies. I am not saying that all foreign policies are bad but we should be very selective.
My humble plea to the powers that be is: let us engage the right and qualified technocrats at all levels of our governance system so that they can advise the government accordingly, and to avoid mediocrity.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=38927
De-linking judiciary
By Kombe Ngolwe.
Wednesday March 12, 2008 [03:00]
The recent announcement of the de-linking the Judiciary from the executive arm of government is a step in the right direction if Zambia is really serious about democratic governance.
I applaud the government for this initiative.
However,Zambians need to ask questions and demand accountability on why and how long Zambians been living under the executive judiciary. This touches the confidence that the general public put in the court system. Without a distinct separate judiciary, people will question their guarantee for a fair and impartial hearing; and protection of the law.
Without a separate and independent judiciary, it would be very difficulty to avoid public accusations and labeling some trials as being politically motivated. A separate judiciary will ensure that justice is rendered in accordance with oath of office of judges and magistrates; and not according to the interests of any political party.
The only way to serve the best interests of Zambians is to effectively implement checks and balances in government by maintaining a distinct separation of those who legislate, execute and decide on laws. Democratic the governance too follows the principle of division of labour.
It is good that this issue comes this moment of constitution making. The best safeguard to avoid this overstep to executive judiciary is make a constitutional amendment now that will make it illegal and extremely difficulty for future executive powers to grab the judiciary in Zambia to serve their political appetites. Mere pronnouncement of de-linking the practice is not enough; make a constitutional law to protect it.
My hope is that this de-linking process of the judiciary will eventually lead to the real separation and independence of the judiciary in Zambia. The only link that needs to be maintained is funding for the judiciary and those Executive privileges as mandated by the Constitution.
http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=38925
World Bank, energy sector
By Kaliza Nyoni UNZA student
Wednesday March 12, 2008 [03:00]
I wish to contribute to the subject on the energy crisis which the permanent secretary Peter Mumba attributed to the wrong advice the World Bank gave to Zambia.
The World Bank is a bank from which many developing countries do borrow in order to finance their developmental projects.
However, when a country borrows, the bank attaches conditions that have to be met for a country to be given the money. Among these conditions are privatisation, restructuring, reducing inflation rate, reducing government budget deficits and cutting government expenditure, devaluation of local currency and many others. Restructuring also includes the energy sector.
Your editorial of 10th March, 2008 stated that the reliance of our government on the World Bank, the IMF and other donors to run the country is frightening. I wish to say that for a country to borrow from the World Bank, these conditions have to be met. Maybe this is why the PS attributed the energy crisis to the World Bank. Zambia had 280 public companies which have been privatised, with only a few remaining;
the sale of Zanaco was just one requirement which the World Bank demanded. We all know that the introduction of multiparty democracy in Zambia was one of the requirements that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank advised Dr Kaunda's regime to allow in order to receive funding from these two financial institutions after our economy had almost collapsed with inflation standing at 200 per cent. The World Bank has to approve some developing countries’ national budgets, thus compromising sovereignty of these nations.
The developmental plans are made in Europe and are not compatible to our situation here. In most cases, they have reaped bitter results. But why should a country like ours borrow. Even in our own national budgets, there is a percentage for donor funding.
When you borrow, you are almost like a slave. Even the so-called HIPC and debt write-off is just one way by which the IMF and World Bank wants to reap our resources. Not all debt under HIPC has been written off, but that it has been spread over to be paid in a longer period. The question is: do we have our own enough resources?
Let’s see if developing countries can organise local resources to finance their development plans without IMF and World Bank. If Zimbabwe will manage to do it without IMF, World Bank and donor agencies in her current state with inflation over 10,000 per cent, then other developing countries can copy from her.
Labels: IMF, JUDICIARY, ZESCO
Read more...
