via Mudenda misfired – NewsDay Zimbabwe July 10, 2014
REPORTS that Speaker of the National Assembly Jacob Mudenda blocked members of Parliament from forming an ad hoc committee to investigate venality at public and private institutions are shocking.
The move itself defeats the foundation of the legislature and the country’s Constitution.
Mudenda told MPs that the only institution empowered to investigate dishonesty cases was the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) as provided under sections 254 and 255 of the Constitution which established ZACC and spelt out its terms of reference.
The ruling nullified a motion that had been adopted earlier where MPs had resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to probe cases of corruption in both private and public entities with a view to bring the culprits to book.
The motion on corruption had been moved by Kambuzuma MP Willias Madzimure (MDC-T) and further amended by Mutasa South MP Irene Zindi (Zanu PF). Interestingly when the motion was introduced and debated in the House, it was supported by MPs across the political divide.
One wonders why Mudenda allowed the debate in the first place. The Speaker must be condemned for filibustering. His actions are very questionable and we urge him to rethink his position.
It is true that ZACC is according to the law mandated to investigate corruption issues in the country. But his argument does not hold water because he is fully conscious of the challenges ZACC is facing.
Trying to be academic by claiming that the Parliament Standing Rules and Orders Committee sat on Monday and concluded that it was ultra vires the Constitution for Parliament to investigate corruption as it would encroach upon the activities of ZACC is but a tired cliché.
Because of Mudenda’s actions, Parliament’s integrity has been thrown into tatters as the anti-corruption commission itself has in the past admitted that it has failed to investigate serious allegations because it lacked legislative teeth.
It is true that by design, ZACC is incapacitated and its failure to investigate all graft-related issues involving the ruling Zanu PF party politicians has delivered a blow to government’s tough-on-crime credentials, suggesting weak and vague legislation has left it unable to investigate and expose serious corruption.
There have been corrupt-conduct allegations against top government officials where ZACC has not felt able to commence investigations because of threshold restrictions of a financial nature. This constraint has possibly undermined the ZACC’s ability to perform and achieve its principal objects and functions.
So Mudenda’s ruling raises concerns that the legal threshold for investigations are vague, too high and, therefore, liable to challenge in the courts or in political circles. And corruption by public officials could be falling through the cracks.
Yet the establishment of ZACC represented a core promise by the government. But questions have been raised about the need for prima facie evidence of indictable offences before investigations can be launched, and the narrow definition of corruption.
And unlike anti-corruption bodies in other jurisdictions, the commission lacks powers to investigate lesser, but potentially serious allegations of misconduct in public office, including for MPs.
The government has long argued that the role of the agency should be to investigate only serious corrupt conduct, claiming the offence of misconduct in public office should be dealt with by other agencies, including the police and the Ombudsman.
COMMENTS
Whether ZACC is there or not the fact that CORRUPTION has become endemic merits its prioritization in Parly. Mudenda is not being sensible but protectionist for offenders.
I beg to differ with the above misplaced article and want to commend Mudenda for a wise decision. This craving for corruption cannot be condoned whether it is camouflaged under parliamentary duty. Here is our experience; During COPAC MPs were now demanding to go to places like Victoria Falls to complete the Constitution!! Really! All of a sudden the parliamentary building were no longer sufficient for the purpose. Now they want to investigate corruption ahead of the ACC? One already smells the craving for allowances and executive lifestyles. It is like Judges removing their robes to investigate crimes. So where will this end? Remember checks and balances are what is required for a democracy to work. Parliament provides checks on institutions like the Executive and Constitutional bodies. Parliament cannot itself assume the executive function and remain without being compromised. If allowed to do so parliament will be compromised to the extent that it will not be able provide a check on the executive and constitutional bodies.
Mandi hits the nail on the head. The craving for executive lifestyles is so clear in this parliament. The question is who would restrain parliament when the wheels come off, which often happens with the executives functions? Let alone that there is so much to be done in parliament itself rather than pursue issues of the executive. The Constitution needs to be unpacked so that the existing laws are aligned with the new Constitution. That is more important for the country than ‘kutuma bete ku mukaka.’
Please parliament debate the repeal of POSA and Aippa. Please Parliament repeal the presidential powers. Please parliament debate the selective application of the law. Please parliament debate the depoliticisation of food aid etc. Let parliament enact laws empowering the propertyless millions in the communal and resettlement farms through title deeds. Let parliament enact laws that prohibit torture and other human rights misdemeanors. There are a thousand of other things that parliament can do that clamour for executive lifestyles.
Mudenda may be right however it’s for the wrong reasons. His role as is to protect the executive which he has does previously. We are the electorate should be holding our MP’s to account and insist they regularly report to us.