allAfrica.com: Botswana: Injustice Mars Zambia's War On Corruption? (Page 1 of 2)

The recent sentencing by the Lusaka High Court to a jail term of the former commandant of the Zambia National Service (ZNS) Major-General Wilford Funjika has served to highlight some of the troubling questions around Zambia's anti-corruption drive and the real difficulties that may arise when judicial proceedings are driven by an overtly political agenda.

Real questions arise as to whether justice can be done and be seen to be done in circumstances replete with open lobbying for stiffer sentences to "deter corruption" by anti-corruption lobbies and when it becomes unavoidable to openly and publicly discuss cases pending in court because they are any way part of the central political discourse of the day.

In circumstances not too different from those, the former ZNS Commandant was on March 10 jailed for nine months, becoming the first of the four former Zambia Defence Force (ZDF) commanders on trial for corruption to receive a custodial sentence.

The development sent some shockwaves as it is widely considered to be indicative of the fate of the other accused, including former president Frederick Chiluba whose cases still have to be determined. The fear is that they may be jailed merely to satisfy the clamour for demonstrative punishment.

Ordinarily, of course, due process in Zambia is straightforward though it may be punctuated by several adjournments. But the verdicts tend to be credible mainly because they are arrived at largely on the basis of the quantum of evidence, free of lobbying or politicking.

It has not been quite so in the corruption cases that have been brought to court in line with President Levy Mwanawasa's campaign of "zero tolerance for corruption".

They have been accompanied by a certain clamour for stiffer sentences by anti-corruption lobbyists and by the usual tendency to extol everything that a president does by those who may want to curry favour, or be seen to be his genuine supporters.

The cases seem to have been prejudiced in no small measure by the constant references to "plunderers" even though the "jury" is still out. Anti-corruption activists have decried sentences as "lenient" and "soft" when it is the harsher ones that are called for.

The judiciary is being exhorted to take a more "activist approach" in order to help "stamp out corruption" and those who must sit in judgement of these issues are now acutely aware of this trend since some of their decisions have been openly criticised.

The jailing of Funjika illustrates something of the general atmosphere. He was found guilty on two counts of abuse of authority of office by a Lusaka magistrate last December and initially given a two-year suspended sentence and ordered to pay back 150,000 pounds Sterling, which he was found to have received from to the ZNS, the third arm of the Zambia Defence Forces.

The magistrate then had said that he had opted for a suspended sentence because of Funjika's failing health.

He is in poor health; having suffered a massive stroke while still on trial that left him virtually paralysed and he now only walks and stands with the aid of a walking stick.

But anti-corruption NGOs notably, Transparency International Zambia (TIZ) rubbished that sentence. They criticised it as "too lenient" and not reflective of the import of the transgression or any real desire to deter corruption. There were other murmurs of disapproval on the lines of the courts letting down the corruption "clean-up."

Subsequently, the High Court reviewed the magistrate's decision and on March 10, set aside the suspended sentence substituting in its stead, a nine-month custodial sentence.

The reviewing judge said that while it was true that Funjika was in failing health, the import of that was reduced by the fact that there were "legislative incursions" that, for instance, allowed the HIV/AIDS afflicted to serve custodial sentences and Funjika was guilty of what the court described as 'grand corruption" for that matter.

Anti-corruption groups were elated and saw it as a victory and vindication of their stance.

The TIZ that decried the suspended sentence as lenient now said that it considered the decision to revise the suspended sentence "a fair judgement".

"However, we strongly feel it should not have come to this if the lower court had done its work properly. The judiciary needs to be bold and courageous in dealing with issues of corruption...The clarity and boldness exhibited in this case should remain the hallmark of the Zambian judiciary," it said.

Referring to what it portrayed as the general trend hitherto, it observed:

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories