Post Newspaper owner Fred M’membe yesterday laid his support for members of the infamous cartel serving in the Patriotic Front government, Wynter Kabimba and Slyvia Masebo, bare by the tribunals instituted to investigate their alleged misconduct and corrupt behaviour in government.
M’membe let out his frustrations by accusing petitioners William Harrington, Brebnar Changala and Lucky Mulusa of abusing the tribunals – the same he also in league with Kabimba – used or is it abused to pursue political opponents like Dora Siliya.
Although both the Kabimba and Masebo tribunals have not conclusively dealt with the PF officials, they have managed to expose numerous flaws in the management of the affairs of the country.
And this has not gone down well with M’membe who believes and wants every Zambian to believe too that the President Michael Sata’s Patriotic Front government is the best thing to happen to Zambians.
Here below is editorial of Friday, March 28, 2014
We are not surprised that all of William Harrington’s complaints against Sylvia Masebo were found not to have been a breach of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Code of Conduct Act.
Harrington is not new to this process. He has been a complainant before and as such, he knows what is expected for a complaint to be sustained. Some of the complaints he was raising against Masebo are issues on which the Supreme Court has passed judgment in other complaints of his and Harrington is very much aware of those decisions.
The fact that he chose to bring these complaints again in another case, now involving Masebo, in total disregard of the decision of the Supreme Court, is clear evidence of malice on his part. And it is not surprising that Given Lubinda, a politician who has a score to settle with Masebo, was working with Harrington over this matter. But a tribunal, under this
Act, was not meant for settling political scores. There are other platforms for settling such grudges.
Those who want to use the tribunal to legitimately fight corruption in our country should try to understand what this Act is about.
Those who enacted this code of conduct were generally concerned with the use of public office to enrich oneself or one’s associates. The intentions of our members of parliament in enacting this Code of Conduct can be seen from the second reading session in August 1994 when this law was being debated: “(i) The people of Zambia did not vote for us in order for us to enrich and benefit ourselves from public office; (ii) The career of politics is not for making money but to serve; (iii) Some members of parliament and leaders are being allowed to make so much wealth and because they become ministers, their companies are blossoming with goods and wealth; and (iv) To correct the cancer of corruption.”
Clearly, this Code of Conduct was intended to deal with corruption by ministers, deputy ministers and members of parliament. It must, therefore, be understood that the Code of Conduct Act was not intended to be a general inquiry into operations of ministers or to deal with their perceived misfeasance in public office. What it is concerned with are actions of ministers and members of parliament which result in them acquiring or assisting others to acquire dishonestly or improperly pecuniary advantage using their public offices. Our members of parliament were concerned about ministers using their offices to corruptly acquire wealth.
It was therefore unanimously agreed by our members of parliament that when a complaint is made against a minister, a deputy minister or indeed a member of parliament arising from alleged corrupt dealings, a tribunal should be set up to investigate the complaint and establish whether there was a breach of the Code of Conduct which they had set for themselves. And if found wanting, the appropriate administrative or criminal proceedings be recommended.
In order to establish a breach of the code of conduct, it is
mandatory for a complainant to demonstrate that the said minister, deputy minister or member of parliament acquired significant pecuniary advantage with respect to the breaches listed under the Act. Whether or not there is such a breach is a matter of evidence and not speculation or mere conjecture. It is not for the tribunal to draw inferences from circumstances as though it were a court of law. And pecuniary advantage is simply in relation to money.
Harrington’s complaint was clearly unfocused on the requirements of the Act and as such was at large. Harrington made several far-reaching allegations outside the scope of the Code of Conduct. But the tribunal is not at liberty to delve into allegations of breaches that fall outside the scope of the Code of Conduct Act. The tribunal’s sole mandate is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct Act. And it is very concise in its provisions. Harrington’s complaints totally fell outside this.
It is clear that Harrington is becoming a habitual complainant under this Act. And this being the case, Harrington is expected to improve the quality of his complaints under this Act. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. A man of his experience with this Act should not have raised such unjustified complaints against Masebo. And Harrington was advised about his complaints’ lack of merit at law. We also wonder why his lawyers could not see that the whole complaint seriously lacked merit under the Code of Conduct Act. What was their motivation? Money! Politics!
Anyway Zambian lawyers, it seems anything goes. As long as it benefits them, they will never tell you that you have no case.
Harrington’s complaints against Masebo are a classical case of how the Code of Conduct Act is being abused.
These complaints are not different from those which were raised by Lucky Mulusa and Brebner Changala. Both lacked merit from the start but were allowed to proceed to the very end. Again, Mulusa was aware of his complaint lacking legal merit but he had a bone to chew with Wynter Kabimba and he thought he could fix him, humiliate him using this Act.
It worked in his favour for a few days before the matter was concluded. But after that, he permanently became the loser. Equally, Harrington thought he was smart and was getting to Masebo. Others like Lubinda also saw an opportunity to have a go at Masebo, Guy Scott and Kabimba. But what did they profit from all this malice?
The Code of Conduct was well intended to ensure that those in public offices do not take advantage of their positions to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves. It was also intended to provide a means by which ministers, deputy ministers and members of parliament would be answerable to the public if they engaged in corruption using their offices.
What we see today is an increasing abuse of this Act to settle political scores, to humiliate political opponents. But abusing any law is tantamount to undermining that law – a law that is abused is a law that is undermined. What we see today are desperate attempts by desperate people to invoke the Code of Conduct Act to institute general inquiries into ministers’ decisions which certain people may not agree with. This Code was not in any way intended to subject every decision of a minister that one finds objectionable or undesirable to a tribunal inquiry.
There was no effort by Harrington’s lawyers to try and relate his wild allegations against Masebo to the Code of Conduct Act. Why? Were they hired to assist Harrington to malign Masebo?
Clearly, a way has to be found to stop the abuse of this well-intended piece of legislation. If not, this law will soon become discredited and of very little use in the fight against corruption.
The post M’membe Struggles to Defend Masebo, Kabimba appeared first on Zambia Reports.