By Bright Chizonde
In the Wednesday 27th October issue of the News Diggers, the editorial comment raised questions on Transparency International Zambia’s support for the amnesty extended to Faith Musonda under the headline “Money Heist and the Sleepy Law Enforcement.” TI-Z would like to rebuttal the editorial comments in order to provide answers to the key questions raised.
First and foremost, TI-Z has noted the public displeasure in the manner in which the case against Margaret Chisela Musonda also known as Faith Musonda has been handled. This displeasure has been fueled by the limited information and media characterization of the case. While taking note that the complaints from the public are legitimate and well founded, we would like to reaffirm our position that we believe the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) acted within the law and for the greater public good. Here is our rebuttal to the key questions raised by the News Diggers and the general public:
- Did the ACC act within the Law in forfeiting the assets without prosecution?
The Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012 provides for asset recovery or forfeiture after criminal prosecution as well as asset recovery without criminal prosecution, or what is known as a civil forfeiture. Section 80 (2-3) reads: “The Commission may negotiate and enter a settlement with any person against whom the commission intends to bring, or has actually brought, a civil claim or application in court. The commission may tender an undertaking, in writing, not to institute criminal proceedings against a person who- (a) has given full and true disclosure of all material facts relating to the past corrupt and an illegal activity by that person or other; and (b) has voluntarily paid, deposited or refunded all property that person acquired through corruption or illegal activity.” It is therefore clear that the ACC acted within the Law in offering Faith Musonda amnesty from prosecution following her willingness to refund the moneys and property.
- What is the main rationale for asset recovery without prosecution?
It should be noted that the Faith Musonda and Anti-Corruption Commission settlement agreement is not a “deal” to allow criminals to go free. It is aimed at saving the public from a lengthy, expensive and uncertain trial. In Zambia’s current predicament, where high profile corruption cases have collapsed in court with no benefit to the public, offering amnesty is part of a broader strategy to fighting corruption. This strategy should however be time-bound so that those who have plundered public resources and fail to declare themselves, and the correct amounts they plundered, within a specified period of time should be investigated and prosecuted. The assets recovered will also benefit the public through reallocation to public services following the forfeiture.
- Is this amnesty against the “Zero tolerance for corruption” stance?
TI-Z would also like to clarify that offering amnesty from prosecution is not in conflict with a “Zero tolerance for corruption” stance since it provides an opportunity to deprive criminals of ill-gotten wealth and generates evidence for other investigations. Considering the conditions under which the amnesty is extended, such cases provide evidence for subsequent investigations and provide insight into criminal activities of close associates of the individual to which the amnesty is extended. It therefore following that Faith Musanda is likely to become a criminal informant as the ACC continues to investigate other related cases. Ultimately, the government, the ACC and indeed TI-Z will continue to uphold the value of Zero tolerance for corruption through prosecuting individuals who would otherwise not have been prosecuted.
- Should the ACC disclose particulars about the Faith Musonda case?
In the same editorial, the Diggers demanded for information from government on which banks were used to transfer the money, which individuals facilitated the transfer, and who authorized the movement of the funds. All these questions are likely to compromise ongoing investigations. It is notable that the Diggers also suspects that the Faith Musonda’s case is not isolated. The interconnections between this case and other ongoing investigations is the reason why Law enforcement agencies such as the Zambia Police Service and the ACC cannot disclose such specifics about the case. The Diggers and the general public should give the new government some time to allow for proper and credible investigations.
- Is this amnesty likely to promote corruption?
As already stated, there is need to set a clear deadline for the amnesty and to develop mechanisms aimed at verifying the accuracy of the declarations made by criminals seeking amnesty. If a timeframe is not specified and criminal are able to under declare the assets gained from corrupt activities, Justice will be ignored and more people will be induced to indulge in corruption. Criminal prosecution should be pursued once the amnesty period elapses for those who opt to remain silent. Furthermore, the settlement agreements should provide for criminal prosecutions in the event that it is discovered that an individual abused the amnesty through providing false information.
In Concluding, TI-Z calls upon the UPND government to urgently clarify their broader strategy of asset recovery in order to address public concerns. There is need to set a clear deadline for the amnesty extended to individuals who plundered public resources and all the information gathered during the amnesty period should be used to build credible cases against those who decide to remain hidden. Furthermore, government should update the nation on how the recovered assets will be utilized. TI-Z also calls upon media houses to follow up on these concerns in order to provide accurate and credible information on the developments around this novice strategy in fighting corruption.
