|
Honourable Folks, I’ve followed with keen interest the views of the newly-appointed Director of Public prosecutions (DPP) Ishmael Wadi on the vice that greatly contributed to the economic retrogression of the past 10 years—corruption. I’m afraid he’s denied me reason to celebrate.
Wadi may have impressed many by promising that he will revisit high profile corruption cases including the Land Rover scam in which Malawians allegedly lost over 6 million USD on 100 second-hand units, the K187 million ($1.8 million) Ministry of Education scam for which only the small fish were netted for prosecution and the botched national identity cards contract which cost the taxpayer millions.
But while all this creates an impression the former DPP may have had sacred cows to protect from the Anti Corruption Bureau, I haven’t heard or seen anything that inspires confidence that the new DPP won’t have sacred cows to protect from the ACB. On the contrary, Wadi thinks as DPP, he ought to have powers to deny the ACB consent to prosecute “frivolous” or “vexatious” cases.
But isn’t it a problem that an appointed DPP should have powers to vet “frivolous” and “vexatious” corruption cases from ACB? You might argue that sceptics like me should seek comfort in the amended Corrupt Practices Act which gives Parliament the final say on such cases but when did the multiparty Parliament in Malawi pretend that the law that applies to the small fish applies equally to MPs, ministers and the President?
Experience of the past 10 years has taught us that those in government assume powers to easily dodge punishment when in the wrong. The police, DPP and Parliament—especially if dominated by MPs from the ruling party and its allies—would not raise eyebrows if the President suddenly became so rich as to dish out millions at political rallies. And our Parliament where some members are also in the Cabinet lacks the moral high ground to be an impartial arbiter on corruption cases.
Wadi should’ve accepted the fact that just as the ACB might fail to distinguish genuine from “frivolous” and “vexatious” corruption cases, he too can fail to deny consent for the prosecution of “frivolous” and “vexatious” cases only. He might, erroneously or not, deny consent for the prosecution of genuine cases. Like his predecessor, the new DPP has risen through a process that inevitably breeds sacred cows. For example, the President who appointed him and those close to the President such as State House Chief of Staff Ken Ng’oma may turn out to be sacred cows. You don’t bite the finger that feeds you, elders said and captains of democratic Malawi haven’t proved them wrong.
Which is why the amendments to the Corrupt Practices Act, as proposed by the Law Commission, which recommended the removal of DPP’s consent, remain the best means of fighting corruption. Prosecutions by the DPP or ACB are carried out by learned lawyers. Currently the ACB has a Supreme Court judge with vast experience at the helm as compared to Wadi who graduated in 2000. Let them argue their cases and win or lose in the courts.
I’d like to believe that magistrates and judges, who determine whether one is guilty or not, are also capable of determining whether a corruption case should be dismissed on grounds that it is “frivolous” and “vexatious”. The claim that left to itself, the ACB can abuse its power and victimise the innocent is nothing but a mere excuse of the powerful in our midst. Isn’t it a fact that even those whose cases may not be considered “frivolous” and “vexatious” by the DPP are still presumed innocent until proven guilty by the courts?
If it is alright for the lesser mortals to be arrested, thrown into stinking police custody and then be set free after the courts prove them innocent, why should it be a problem to lock up a potbellied politician, suspected of swindling the economy, and set them free after the courts prove their innocence? The powerful know that suspects in police custody, despite their presumed innocence, may sleep on the cold floor without anything to bite. That’s why they want the DPP to shield them.
True, the Constitution gives the DPP overriding powers to pursue or discontinue any criminal case but I’d like to believe there wouldn’t have been any need at all for setting up the ACB if the DPP, with all the powers accorded to the office by the Constitution, was effective in fighting corruption. We just can’t have the ACB that operates like a department in the DPP’s office. Let it stand on its own feet and answer for its actions.
|
