Perspective: Anti-graft net must land big fish

corruption 2

Stephen Mpofu
EMBASSY upon embassy of words against corruption have passed between those in the leadership hierarchy in this country and yet no really big fish has been landed to the general public’s applause.

On the contrary, it seems that even the small fish, the kapenta/matemba have blithely swum behind the big fish through what appears to be gaping holes in the net and to the chagrin of law abiding citizens who are against any form of corruption spreading like cancer in any sector of Zimbabwean society because such rot besmirches this country’s image in the eyes of those in a world which advances in communication have reduced to a global village.

But this pen and no doubt other Zimbabweans committed to the rule of law, see a ray of hope growing into a beam in operations of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission following the recent transfer of the government’s anti-graft apparatus from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Office of the President and Cabinet. The move came reportedly after a realisation that the Ministry under which ZACC was originally placed had difficulties investigating other ministries.

Implicit in the transfer would appear to be a strong suggestion or belief, or realisation, that there are big sharks in some government ministries as well as in some quasi-government institutions where corrupt tendencies are rampant because those involved in the anti-social acts viewed the commission against corruption as either a toothless bulldog or a body restrained by its placement under a ministry shy of reaching out to them without any impediment.

The change in the commission’s location translates, in this pen’s humble opinion, to a fresh mandate or new set of incisors to cut deep into the flesh of and extract corrupt employees hibernating and sucking the blood of their employers – be they in government, parastatals or in the private  sector – vampire-style.  ZACC’s new enablement should effectively rid this nation of greedy, mindless creatures who will stop at nothing in fattening their bellies through unorthodox measures to the disadvantage of their employer and, ultimately, that also of the nation as a whole.

Assuming that the individual lives of members of the commission are themselves above board, Zimbabweans obviously hope to see in the near future those people accused of corruption being dragged before the courts to face the wrath of the law, or being given short shrift from their jobs or being subjected to both dismissal and imprisonment as well as making reparations for their offences with the hope that their demise will serve as a deterrence to anyone else disposed to corruption as a way of getting rich quickly and by any means open to them.

In short, Zimbabweans should see what has hitherto been merely shrill anti-corruption rhetoric being shoved in the shade by swift if not altogether ruthless action in cleansing our society of parallels of the devil who is an unrepentant thief, killer and destroyer of anything good and beneficial to humanity.

What may therefore have virtually stood as mission impossible should under the Office of the President and Cabinet become mission accomplished with all law abiding citizens cracking smiles of appreciation and applause for a job well done.

For the record and for those not in the know, Zimbabwe is not the only country plagued by corruption in the world. Other developing nations are faced with the same scourge but may not have the courage of their conviction to speak about that ill in the same way as our own country does and acts against it.

That Britain, a developed nation, recently held a conference on anti-corruption can only suggest to all and sundry that all countries affected by graft should exchange notes where possible to effectively free their own people of the evil spirit of corrupt tendencies.

In Zimbabwe, it would appear that for some people the fight against corruption is viewed as a conditionality for foreign investment, and those intending to bring their capital to this country probably take advantage of that and add the indigenisation programme as leverage.

Yes, people who bring in their money to invest naturally wish to have their investment protected. But for potential investors to try to use their money as a lethal weapon to kill the rights of Zimbabweans to control their economy in fulfillment of the revolution that brought us independence and freedom and sovereignty, should be viewed by all as untenable as the move implies acceptance of contemporary economic imperialism in a country where political imperialism is now all but a proverb.

Those who want to bring their money here and which, as a matter of fact, is guaranteed protection and beneficiation should embrace indigenisation under which 51 percent of the shares should be under Zimbabwean ownership.

For the incumbent government and any other government in the future to throw the indigenisation program to the wolves of foreign investors will amount to selling out to imperialism’s hegemonic tendencies that are counter revolutionary.

Of course, while anti-corruption should augur well for the protection of foreign investment, its primary objective is to rid Zimbabwe of people driven by personal, unpatriotic desires to fatten their bellies even at the expense of the employer or other beneficiary regardless of whether these titter on the brink or are sinking as a result of being deprived of their resources.

Today’s leaders have an unmitigated responsibility, in fact a duty, to bequeath to young Zimbabweans and future leaders of this country a track record of honesty, law abidance and patriotism to the core so that our country may smoothly move into a brave new future under new generations of leaders.

You Might Also Like

Comments