Zimpapers Logo

ZACC has been arguing that giving them arresting and prosecutorial power would provide fresh impetus to the anti-corruption drive, but their record so far is not convincing

Nick Mangwana View from the Diaspora

Having prosecutorial powers would probably help ZACC very much. But let us hear what they have done with the powers they already have. Let us have a look at some of the powers they are given by the Constitution.

The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) is not an institution the nation has heard much from since it was commissioned. In fact, what has been heard about them is their own scandals that stink of corruption. Now there is another pungent odour coming from their offices.

They are fighting among themselves and at the same time asking for more powers. Do they deserve these powers?

Are they even the right people to help the nation fight the scourge of corruption? There are more questions than answers in this piece. But these questions have to be asked.

Does the Zimbabwean public have unrealistic expectations of ZACC or is ZACC somehow disempowered from delivering a very clear expectation from members of the public?

ZACC is indicating that there is no consistent support to it including infrastructure, total independence as well as financial neglect.

These all sound, very plausible and the public is inclined to sympathise with this position. But hang on, ZACC itself is scandal prone; they have a commissioner in Chikurubi right now. They have someone who has been assigned to a post that has a very curious job title.

What does a “general manager for external relations and international conventions” actually do every day between the hours of 9am and 5pm?

From the title of general manager, does this imply that ZACC has an executive who runs a department with supporting staff, supervisors and other employees whom they superintend over? And what does this department actually do? “External Relations and International Conventions”?

Is it some public relations gig with a role in international gatherings and treaties? Is this a department which is responsible for claiming per diems? Is this a department that facilitates the attendance of international gatherings? Well, without a job description the answers might never be forthcoming.

What is clear is that this sounds quite grandiose for an organisation that has been as impotent as a eunuch. In fact, this whole post sounds dodgy or at best invented. Isn’t the whole anti-corruption fight a drive at transparency and accountability? Does this go against ZACC’s very founding principles? How can the organisation argue that they have no money with this superfluity?

There might have been efforts to undermine ZACC by other quarters but that comes with the territory. Serious corruption is normally perpetrated by people with serious power and influence so political resistance comes with the territory.

When you fight corruption it is natural that you should be expecting to be fighting very scary monsters with very big toes which you can’t avoid stepping on. So this cry-baby language that the police is not playing ball is not exactly what the nation is expecting.

It expects a report from ZACC to Parliament which has overall oversight stating who they directed the Commissioner-General of Police to arrest. A full list of those people is all the evidence that the nation would need to make a case of the limitation of the constitutional powers bestowed upon them.

It goes without saying that the said list would be enough evidence of the corruption of the Commissioner-General himself. It would mean that ZACC would have done its job and therefore saying to Parliament, please give us more power so we can arrest the Commissioner-General and prosecute him for corruptly blocking the arrest of corrupt people. Without that all the nation is getting from ZACC are excuses from overpaid and possibly corrupt or simply inept commissioners.

This piece is not ignoring the political context within which ZACC operates. They knew that before applying for those jobs.

They were given these powerful jobs and all we are getting for that is their incestuous business relationships with their own organisations such as forming shelf companies through which they transact with ZACC. People were suspended and some were exonerated but when it comes to transparency bodies, perception and public confidence is everything.

This type of thing blights ZACC’s public image and they don’t need a general manager for external relations to restore it. They just need to operate with integrity. Their credibility issues are not resolved by appointing someone with an iconic surname to high sounding gratuitous job title. It only comes from their delivery of their current constitutional mandate as it is.

Having prosecutorial powers would probably help ZACC very much. But let us hear what they have done with the powers they already have. Let us have a look at some of the powers they are given by the Constitution.

Section 255(e) gives them power to “direct” Commissioner-General of Police to investigate suspected cases of corruption and report to ZACC. So as asked before, can ZACC provide Parliament with the cases and dates they gave such direction to the Commissioner- General and what was the outcome of those cases?

Then s255(f) says that it is a function of ZACC to refer the investigated cases needing prosecution to the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). ZACC is seeking independent prosecuting powers. That is all well. Can they tell the nation through Parliament how many cases they have referred to the NPA and what was the outcome of such cases?

It is only when they have done that that they can convince anyone of the need to tamper around with the Constitution because they would have proved that the fight against corruption is being impeded by either the police or the prosecution or both, so giving them arresting and prosecutorial power would give fresh impetus to the anti-corruption drive. Without that all we have are bungled high-profile cases and maybe one or two where executive interference was alleged.

It, is of course, propitious for an independent commission to be able to manage its whole value chain. That will certainly be ideal as it makes it much more “independent”. But the reader is reminded that to take this view might also lead to ZACC needing its own holding cells as the nation has grappled with allegations of executive interference at that level as well.

Maybe next they will ask for their own judges. That is not utopian because some places like Pakistan and India have senior special judges who deal such cases. But before seeking more power we need ZACC to show us what they have done with the power they already have.

Headlines like the arrest of three junior police officers for low-level bribes is not evidence of ZACC’s effectiveness. This is a total failure of existential justification by the commission. Section 255(b) empowers ZACC to deal with cases of abuse of power and improper conduct in public office. Surely, there are too many clear cases of improper conduct in public office. What has been done about that?

Let us not turn this into a ZACC bashing piece. We also need to say there is anecdotal evidence that this commission is being accorded token political support. The question of being under-resourced is real but this affects a lot of our institutions, so it is incumbent upon them to show financial prudence and judiciously manage the resources they have.

It is part of their role to ensure financial discipline and transparency (s255(c)) and this charity should surely begin at home. This piece acknowledges that the political support given to ZACC is half-hearted that the organisation is also not immune from political interference.

This idea of people continuously asking for more power in certain positions has never been good for any institution. This is why the concept of separation of powers is the central feature of transparency and accountability. Not the centralisation of it.

The State should not use ZACC as a fig leaf to cover key parts of its modesty. The support given to it should be un- wavering, substantial and well meaning. It should be capacitated enough, independent enough to deliver on its mandate. Political interference with its functions should not be tolerated at any level. On its part, ZACC should be immune to corruption and exercise judicious financial prudence.