of corruption, mis-management, abuse, and theft in the public sector.
Tribunals, court cases and trials in the media have flavoured the
first half of this year. The country has seen debates and discussions
in the urban areas, on which Government officer stole what, and which
Government Minister made some illicit deals.
The net result is that the public have been subjected to
mis-information, polarized views, and continued use of tax payer’s
money on issues that have not solidly taken the country forward. This
is evident by the ongoing grumblings and mumblings on the streets
about corruption, abuse of office, and theft within the Government
machinery even after tribunal findings have been publicized and some
Court rulings have been made.
The fact is that the public at large sit in a position of
dissatisfaction with the final outcomes of investigations, hearings,
and findings in respect to public sector indiscretions. There is an
empty and unfulfilled feeling at the end of each episode, possibly
because the final outcomes fail to take the country forward in any
conclusive manner.
The public dissatisfaction is a good point to start analyzing where
the underlying cause may come from. Irrespective of whether due
process was followed in tackling the various accusations made against
public workers and Government Ministers, the reality on the ground is
that the public exhibit a sense of non-closure to the issues that have
caught the media front pages over the last six months.
One possible reason for this non-closure may be that much of the
debates and shuffling was focused on only one goal: to prove a wrong
doing performed by a public worker or a Government Minister which
should be rewarded by some form of punishment. When at the end of it
all there is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove a wrong
doing, no punishment is meted out and the whole affair appears to sit
in limbo unresolved because insufficient evidence may fail to secure a
conviction, but does not amount to absolute innocence.
The trend in Zambia is to focus only on evidence and not to consider
other aspects such as integrity, sincerity, and judgment.
In many other countries when public workers are seen to act without
integrity, or insincerely, and exhibit poor judgment, they are forced
to resign or are sacked by the appointing authority. This is evident
in the USA when the former World Bank president was seen to influence
the remuneration package of a female friend. In the UK several senior
Government officers and public officials resigned their positions in
the wake of accusations of expense claims that were not considered
normal. Italy has seen Presidents resigning their official offices
because of having extra marital affairs that are not criminal offences
but are considered distasteful in the eyes of the public. The
rationale is that if a President can cheat on his wife then he can
also cheat on his country as Head of State.
Much as Zambia puts much effort on following due process when
analyzing the conduct of public officers and Government Ministers, it
is equally important to use the issues on the table to develop more
robust processes that protect the public interest, protect the public
workers, and protect the Government Ministers.
The flip side of the due process paradigm that either convicts or
clears a public figure, is to ensure that in the future an equally
robust due process is followed in performing public duties on behalf
of the people of Zambia.
What lessons did we learn from the Ministry of Communications MOU
saga? What new measures have we put in place to ensure that a similar
situation does not arise in the future? What options are there for
Cabinet Office to compel the various Government Ministries to follow
approved procedures for handling MOU’s, Agreements, and Contracts? How
can we use the expensive lessons learned from the losses at the
Ministry of Health to tighten up processes and procedures in managing
public funds to prevent similar occurrences in the future? Is there a
compelling case for the office of the Accountant General to be more
pro-active in monitoring, evaluating and making corrections to
Government accounting systems to curb the opportunities for losses in
the future? What options are there to strengthen the linkages between
the Attorney General’s Office and the various Government Ministries
and Statutory bodies such that legal advice is easily and mandatory
given where required in an effort to protect the interests of the
country?
These questions may appear to be unanswered as several of the on going
cases are concluded, and therefore, become the root for
dissatisfaction and non-closure in the eyes of the public.
The private sector is also affected by this perception as it ingrains
a sense of insecurity and lack of confidence in the public sector. The
end result is fueled corruption and a higher cost of doing business
within the country.
It is time that Zambia matured to a level where some of our goals
should be to follow due process of the law, to ensure integrity,
sincerity and good judgment in the public sector, and to evolve our
due processes and procedures in Government.
Currently our focus is so narrow that we miss the opportunity to
improve our performance and conduct, such that we fail to understand
why more impoverished countries in our region continue to attract
higher rates of investment than ourselves.
Published 23 June 2009
Thanks Yusuf, for that very interesting perspective! I think that you raise many points which are worthy of further discussion and elaboration. There is one of these which I feel capable of meaningful contribution to, namely lessons learned (or unlearned) from the Ministry of Communications (MoC) MOU saga. There is more to your position than that, I know, but this one stands out for me personally.
ReplyDeleteOn the MoC MOU Saga:
I remember doing a lot of the initial media research for Zambian Economist into who exactly these RP Capital people were after the initial MOU was announced, before we knew that there might be anything wrong with it. At first it was really difficult, because I had made the mistake of assuming that they had experience in the telecommunications field, and was looking for evidence of past jobs they might have done. Of course I found nothing. It was only after quite some time before we could narrow the list of possibles down to this particular Cayman Islands registered corporation as the actual named valuation contractor. That alone was raising alarm bells: Why should this be hard? Why wasn't the MoC trumpeting this company's international bona fides to the skies as proof of their impartial auditing practices? Why weren't they mentioned anywhere in the professional telecom trade media? What experience did this Cayman Islands hedge fund bring to the context? Why weren't there any other bidders for the job? And so on. It was pretty obvious that this was not a normal contract tender.
None of these questions being asked by the media were particularly controversial, but apparently the answers were because no answers were forthcoming. Instead the MoC line was: "This deal is already done, nothing can change it, why are you still talking about it?" Given that impossible defense, of course it was not long before people in the political opposition with access to sufficient information and legal resources within the Zambian system picked it up and bundled it into court together with two pre-existing claims against the Minister, both of which were not subsequently upheld by the Tribunal on the evidence. The Tribunal did however find that the evidence in the case of the MoU with RP Capital was sufficient to return a verdict that the Minister's actions had been unconstitutional. The Minister resigned, and a new one was appointed to clean up the mess.
Then comes the decision that, oh wait, never mind, that Tribunal didn't actually have the authority to rule on the case, so the Minister wasn't really convicted. Okay. I can accept that part, with the obvious remedy being a re-trial before a competent tribunal. But no, the party line instead is that the Minister was innocent all along because the tribunal which found her guilty on the evidence had no standing, therefore the evidence was false? No re-trial necessary? The Minister is fully vindicated and can now be immediately handed a brand new portfolio within the Executive Cabinet? And to question this is somehow disloyal? Disloyal to whom, the Constitution?
So yeah, a lot of procedures and processes there that could use some work, to say the least. Thanks for the blog, and for standing up for due process.