Zimpapers Logo

THE moves now in progress to reclaim 14 stands in the up-market Carrick Creagh development in north-east Borrowdale that had been improperly alienated for token sums heralds yet one more approach in the continual and effective battle against corruption, using the term in its broadest sense, by denying anyone the gains.

This particular civil route was clearly chosen because the winners who acquired title to the stands, and the smallest was worth just under US$300 000, for trivial amounts, did not commit a criminal offence themselves, or at least an offence leaving any evidence that could bring a conviction in the courts.

They benefited from what by any standard was a grave abuse of public office by those in the then Government who had the authority to approve the transfers for a token payment of a few dollars, rather than the set selling price.

But no one involved is likely to stand up and tell us exactly why it was done. We just know what was done.

With one possible exception, and even that case appears to be for personal rather than official reasons, the 11 beneficiaries were not on the public payroll nor had they taken an oath of public office.

Former First Lady Grace Mugabe fairly obviously either used her growing influence in the dying days of the First Republic or was eager to accept what amounted to a very large gift because of that influence, perhaps both. But “First Lady” is not a legally designated position. It is an informal title of respect although the respect needs to be earned, as her predecessor and successor have both shown.

The Minister of Local Government and Public Works, July Moyo, who presumably took some high level legal advice, is on strong legal ground.

He is simply reclaiming State assets that were improperly given away when he announced his intention of cancelling the transfers of expensive and serviced State land.

And as he carefully noted in his official notice, he has a positive duty under the Constitution itself to look after State assets entrusted to his Ministry.

That certainly gives him the legal standing to intervene and use his powers under the Deeds Registries Act.

Carrick Creagh is a public-private joint venture, using State-owned land, hence the public side of the joint venture. The private side was the investment by a private developer into the provision of all the expensive services, from the road network onwards, that converted a farm into an urban suburb.

It is all those services that make urban land far more expensive than farm land. The gift of the 14 stands obviously hit the private partner as well, who is entitled to a return on the cash they pumped in.

Zimbabwe under the Second Republic is encouraging private investors, indeed is eager for them to participate directly or through joint ventures, and having one cheated by corrupt activity or influence peddling is hardly a good advertisement.

We are now making it clear that investors are entitled to legitimate returns, and the Minister’s action will help make that even clearer, by action as well as promises.

The reclaimed stands can be sold at the proper price for the benefit of both partners, the State and the developer.

But this particular case reinforces the policy already in place to reclaim assets acquired corruptly or improperly. Where a criminal case can be brought to a successful conclusion the criminal courts can take the necessary action. The simplest is to give a significant discount on the jail sentence if the convicted person hands over the value of the asset in cash, or returns stolen cash.

After a couple of weeks in jail everyone suddenly sees the point of this, hence the applications for later deadlines for repayment to give them time to raise the money.

That particular extension of the sentencing procedure arose in the late 1980s when a High Court judge noted that if the money stolen in the case he was trying had already been repaid it would be a major mitigating factor and the thief would have received a lower sentence.

So he extended the concept to mitigation in arrears, and on the automatic appeal, always heard when sentencing sets a new precedent, the Supreme Court not only enthusiastically endorsed the new concept, but set a larger discount. We had a new precedent now routinely used in sentencing the dishonest.

But we are all aware of the complications and delays in criminal trials, especially in corruption cases where independent witnesses are by the nature of the offence excluded, and the paper work either does not exist in the first place or is carefully altered or destroyed.

However, the civil law has been extended by statute allowing for forfeiture of assets that are acquired corruptly.

The big difference comes from the different standards of proof. In criminal cases, where someone can lose their freedom, it is necessary to prove the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, where the dispute is between two parties over who owns an asset or who owns the money, the proof is on the balance of probabilities. This makes sense as the asset or money is physically there and someone must own it.

The civil procedures also mean that those who have not committed a criminal offence, and are just beneficiaries of improper actions as in the Carrick Creagh example, can also lose what they acquired.

In the civil cases involving forfeiture, the honest person from tax records, personal accounts, income statements and the like can easily show it is at least highly probable that they used their own legal money to acquire the asset, so keeps it.

For the corrupt person, even if there is a paucity of evidence to convict on a criminal charge or no charge is possible, it can be shown that it is highly probable that the asset or the money to buy it just parachuted from unknown sources.

No one stands up and says they bought some mansions from money they stole or bribes they received. They miss the jail time, but they still lose out.

This needs to be continuously pushed and extended, as Minister Moyo is now doing.

Although no one spends time in jail from a civil case, it is still a major deterrent if you cannot keep anything. We should never underestimate the result of seeing your name dragged through the mud, and no one respecting your integrity, if there is no financial gain to compensate.

But in any case a primary function of everyone in State service, laid down in the Constitution no less as Minister Moyo noted, is to safeguard all State assets.

That would include for that matter cash paid to dishonest contractors as the recent insistence on value for money shows.

And that certainly means getting the money or asset back if it was corruptly alienated. Even the dubious contractors have now lost out; they will never have another contract even though their dishonesty did not involve corruption, just greed.

Corruption, abuse of public office and influence peddling have caused Zimbabwe a great deal of harm. These must be fought hard on all fronts, the criminal courts and using the full extent of civil law. When those involved in these sort of crimes and fiddles cannot win we can all hope that others will not bother trying, but it needs continuous pressure and everyone on full alert to drive that message home.