Public officials must declare assets The declaration of assets such as vehicles by public officials has the support of the public and those with nothing to hide
The declaration of assets such as vehicles by public officials has the support of the public and those with nothing to hide

The declaration of assets such as vehicles by public officials has the support of the public and those with nothing to hide

Nick Mangwana View from the Diaspora

The declaration of assets by public officials has the support of the public and those with nothing to hide. But the delay in implementation does indicate that there are some with a lot to hide who are resolved to defeat this process.

Confidence in public officials is probably at its lowest in Zimbabwe. The equity barometer in the country is considered to be non-existent anymore. This writer just wonders what would happen if one of the ubiquitous police check points would stop an ordinary citizen, search their car and find them carrying $60 000 in cash.

Wouldn’t they want to know where they got that money from and whether they can prove that it is clean? Wouldn’t they want to follow the trail and see whether appropriate declarations had been made to ZIMRA and due taxes paid?

More often than not if that person is not prominent and they cannot explain the source and purpose of the money they would lose it. In most countries, including Britain and United States, if one is found with a lot of cash they can’t explain, the authorities seize that money.

Now, imagine a person is a civil servant, an MP or a minister whose salary is well known (because it is a subject of a public record) is the one seen carrying money beyond their capacity to earn. And by some freak coincidence a large amount of money is also missing from some public coffers which have a remote connection with this person. Imagine the police becomes aware that this public official is carrying on his person these vast amounts of cash which cannot be justified without engaging with them. If they were running a big cash business, then one would understand. But nothing of the sort is known. If the police do not ask them to account for the source of their money wouldn’t that be considered serious dereliction of duty? But cash is only one way an ill-gotten asset can be in. Instead of cash, it can be a house or car or simply lifestyle.

Well, dear readers, this is exactly what is happening in Zimbabwe. The only difference is that you will not see the cash. You are only seeing what it is buying. But there is no difference, is there? You will see their children going to expensive schools without scholarships.

You see Hollywood style mansions brought to Harare by a public servant and the public is expected to walk on without a second glance? They are not expected to speculate that this steward of either a public purse or public enterprise is helping themselves to the proceeds or contents of same? Isn’t this asking the public to be naïve? The Zimbabwean public might love crazes, but naivety is not one of their biggest weaknesses.

They will arrive at the only logical conclusion; that whatever is missing from the public purse is finding its way into the brick and mortar of the public official and the accompanying ostentatious lifestyle.

To help these top public officials understand the point clearer, let us bring it to their own domestic situation maybe it would make sense. Suppose you have house-help in the form of a housemaid or gardener. You start missing some tools and jewellery at your house. One Monday morning you see the gardener driving a Honda Fit and you hear that they have just electrified their rural home and sunk a couple of boreholes and installed an elegant irrigation system! What is likely to be your response? Maybe seven out of 10 people would call the police and say “batai munhu” (dig deeper).

The other three out of 10 if this happens and they had not missed anything would just do a thorough inventory to their assets. In 10 out of 10 a not so friendly conversation of some sort between employer and employee would happen over the source of the new found wealth.

There could be a very innocent explanation. Maybe there is a lottery won.

Maybe some aunt in the Diaspora died and the employee was the sole heir to the former council flat and some life insurance denominated in stronger currency such as the Sterling. Maybe there is another source which is completely free from any moral or legal wrong.

Whatever the case may be, the employer would ask the gardener, why he had not told them of his new found riches. In short, they will ask the employee why they did not declare their assets in the first place.

The ironic thing is that this same employer is also a public official, meaning that they are an employee of the public. By the same token where they expect their gardener to justify their wealth, why would it be wrong for us the public to ask them to declare their assets as well? Isn’t what’s good for the goose equally good for the gander?

Public officials in Zimbabwe are under siege because of the corruption of their colleagues. There are very clean public officials. By the same token there are some filth public officials. The same brush is being applied to both groups in broad strokes. The same applies to the party which this columnist belongs to. There are a multitude of victims of corruption on its membership books. You read that one right; victims.

This is because the damage which corruption inflicts on a nation is felt by everyone. There are also corrupt people within the rank and file of the party more so within its powerful leadership.

This taints the image of both the party and the clean rank and file. We will leave the party for now and go back to public officials because they are the ones being called upon by Chapter 9 of the Constitution to use public resources efficiently and economically. Do they? It is the same ones upon whom an obligation is placed by the Constitution in the same chapter to foster transparency by providing the public with accurate and easily accessible information. Do they? Doesn’t this information include everything that they have been paid in the course of their duty? So if the public knows this and their lifestyle cannot be justified by the modesty public service income what would be next logical thing besides auditing their lifestyle?

It would appear simple enough reader, wouldn’t it? But these public officials do not want this. Some powerful people are not keen on the land audit and you think they would be keen on a more personal lifestyle audit? If they can use excuses on the land that belongs to the State, how much will they resist something more intrusive?

Some of these people in power are not even aware that the Constitution says that the people are not to be ruled, but served. Oh yes, it is in the Constitution. But we always hear “Tokutongai”. It is also written that there shouldn’t be a conflict between the public official’s private and their public life. But how does the public know if that is happening? Only through mandatory declaration of assets by public officials. You don’t want public scrutiny, then don’t be a public official.

But we learn there is a loophole already. All cash assets totalling above $25 000 have to be declared. Any benefits worth over $4 500 has to be declared. That includes scholarships for children. But we read that they are not supposed to declare “gifts or treats from relatives of first or second degree”.

God knows what that means, but to this writer it is a loophole.

The nation has seen some people getting multiple farms using the names of their children in some cases minor children.

The nation has also observed in invested interest at some people giving each other “treats” of houses, cars and expensive holidays. This does sound like a glaring loophole. People of means would always declare a flatulent gift as a “usual treat” because those things are contextual to one’s means.

There has to be political will to implement this. Let the nation remember that this has been in the Standing Rules and Orders since 2012 and just a few dozen MPs have ever declared anything in the Asset Declaration Register.

What is there to hide? Maybe part of some grand loot that happened between 2009 and 2016.

Public is under threat from corruption. Delivery of justice is not entirely immune whether a few successfully buy justice.

Fair business processes and competition is under threat from the scourge of corruption. Good public governance is being undermined by corruption with a lot of corrupt people making themselves proximate to power thus making themselves exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us.

The declaration of assets by public officials has the support of the public and those with nothing to hide. But the delay in implementation does indicate that there are some with a lot to hide who are resolved to defeat this process. They should not be allowed to succeed.

This issue is way too important that international standards, benchmarks and best practice have to be brought into the arguments. Next week this column will approach the same issue from that angle.

The wise old folks who fore-ran us said, “Mudzimu unoteurwa husiku ndewemuroyi (any act that avoids the scrutiny of daylight transparency is not bona fide)”.

Those not keen on this interpretation have to contend with “the spirit which is appeased at night is that of a witch.” See you next week.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey