On personalising the fight against corruption
I must concede that I have not seen before, the level of public agitation over matters of corruption as in recent years. A day will not pass without hearing or reading about the current state of corruption in our country or what is being done about it. Ordinarily, this should be something to be celebrated as it signifies, perhaps, the stage of our country’s democratic maturity where citizens are not constrained to openly express their views over the conduct of public officials and the performance of State institutions. Unfortunately, based on what we have witnessed in recent weeks, we must accept that in essence there is a discord between popular expectations and what can actually be delivered, especially in the area of anti-corruption.
I am certain that almost everyone is in agreement by now that corruption is a very complex phenomenon. Corruption is quite complicated, and in our previous entries we have stated that those who profess to fight corruption have a very difficult challenge of working with a double-edged knife, one must handle it with care or risk getting cut by the same tool. It is the same as the house owner who keeps a dangerous breed of dogs to keep away thieves. He must handle them well or risk being mauled if by any means he gets to step on their nerves.
Reading from what has been happening with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, especially with the current Director General, it is easy to see that right from the beginning of her term at ACB, she did not amuse many people. Somehow, under her management, the ACB has turned out to be that “overzealous” gateman who spares no one from security checks! Here is for the first time an anti-corruption bureau that threatens to pursue anyone without fear or favour and appears to literally mean what it is saying by attempting to drag big names through the courts and possibly sending them to spend long years in jail or losing their wealth, power and privileges. Obviously, that cannot be amusing news for those who for some reason find comfort in a less effective ACB.
The ACB has been around for quite some time. It was established through an Act of Parliament of 1996, just two years after Malawi adopted a new Constitution. In a way, the bureau is as old as our democratic governance dispensation, widely touted as a form of government anchored around tenets of accountability and transparency, rule of law, respect for human rights, pluralism, etc.
With close to twenty-seven years of the existence of ACB, is Malawi safe from corruption? With what has happened in the years of the Bureau’s existence, is it a fair expectation that corruption will end on the day that we shall have a very fearless ACB with freedom to prosecute anyone? I doubt it.
There is a reason why both the 2008 and 2019 National Anti-Corruption Strategies emphasised tackling corruption from a holistic point of view, a departure from the thinking that the ACB alone or anyone at its helm of leadership was the ultimate solution to corruption in Malawi. Just like in many countries, corruption in Malawi is deep-rooted and as already acknowledged, it is just too difficult to be handled by one person or institution. It must be the responsibility of every individual citizen just as it is for all state and non-state institutions to play their role in supporting anti-corruption processes.
At a legal or policy level there must be a way to protect the people entrusted with the leadership of the ACB from the established and growing misconception that they are personally liable for failing to arrest all corruption suspects or in the long run, stopping corruption in Malawi. The failure to arrest all or some corruption suspects cannot be blamed on one person or institution. Most importantly, the fight against corruption should never be personalised. We all have a stake in it and no individual person must be sacrificed for the sins of many, anymore.
