One wonders what is more indecent: the pardon extended to the son of the commissioner of police or the citizen being treated as an insignificant idiot given the opacity within which the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy operates.
Fortunately, the outcry was quasi unanimous. Only quasi as these drifts, despite their unacceptable character, did nevertheless secure the support of a few who actually did not appear to be voicing their own opinion but seemingly echoing that of Lakwizin. For his part, the attorney general contends that our constitution confers this prerogative on the commission, implying the fallacy that our laws are cast in stone, impermeable to any progressive change which circumstances may dictate. In fact, a trap aimed at barring any debate or, at best, limiting it to its legal aspects. Whence the media being flooded with analyses from lawyers.
"Giving up what's ethical and instead relying entirely on what's legal as a standard for decision-making results in moral bankruptcy."
Some, twisting facts, sidestepped the real issue, striving to justify the unjustifiable. Others highlighted the danger of the judiciary being hijacked by a commission discredited by the suspicion of partiality as some of its members, paid from public funds, are apparently close to the ruling government. The bottom line is a situation where the citizen is pushed into a labyrinth of complex legal subtleties. The ensuing debate consequently runs the risk of veiling an aspect even more dangerous: the judicialisation of our society at the expense of ethics as brilliantly exposed by John Maxwell in Ethics 101: giving up what's ethical and instead relying entirely on what's legal as a standard for decision-making results in moral bankruptcy. He quotes the Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "I've lived in a society where there was no rule of law. And that's a terrible existence. But a society where the rule of law is the only standard of behaviour is equally bad. We believe you have to aspire to something higher than what's legal. Is what you're doing right?" But that was probably before his famous 1978 speech at Harvard University: The Decline of Courage... .
This particular address helps us understand how certain circles are bold enough to qualify a shocking decision as 'a storm in a teacup'. Actually, a most welcome expression as it reminds us of Shakespeare's "So foul a sky clears not without a storm!" Indeed, the context calls for an urgent and drastic surgery: too many of our institutions are plagued with compatriots who consider 'morality as a private and costly luxury'. Enjoy the similarity with the infamous 'moralité pas rempli ventre'! In such a chaotic environment, if the judiciary - our last safeguard - were not shielded from any interference, the road would be paved for a banana republic. We should therefore consider seriously the abolition of this outmoded body, inherited from an old-fashioned monarchy. Meanwhile, the present Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy should be immediately done away with until, and only if, its composition is insulated from political nominees, whose decisions may be guided, or better still, coerced by interests other than those of our nation!
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Given the state of rottenness exemplified by so many institutions, would it be utopic to identify men and women who have made integrity the foundation of their character? Who would not cut corners to please their masters? Who are led by ideals and convictions? And who know that 'the longest distance between two points is a shortcut', particularly when ethics are concerned? These commodities are priceless given their scarcity but are a must to stop what clearly is an inexorable sprint of our country towards the cliffs of moral disaster.
