For a typical Zambian day, June 17, 2009 has certainly had a more than usual level of political activity.
A few hours after Judge Phillip Musonda found that the Dennis Chirwa tribunal exercised "excessive jurisdiction when it invoked Article 54 sub-section 3 to declare Ms. Siliya in breach of the constitution," President Banda appointed her Minister of Education.
Zambia is not known for such expediency, not especially with anything Government related! One or two people I know would certainly wish ZESCO reacted with similar haste in resolving power failures? Unsurprisingly, reaction to the news of Dora Siliya's reappointment to Cabinet was instant! It was especially evident on social networking sites and the blogosphere.
One of the more poignant status updates on facebook read - "It is futile to believe our leaders will understand that legal decisions are seldom in line with political legitimacy or acceptability..."
Really?
The question that begs to be answered is whether it is always in a society's interest for its leaders to seek first political "legitimacy and acceptability"? Political legitimacy and acceptability are, in politics at least, rather fuzzy notions that cannot empirically be determined to be universal. What I may consider legitimate and acceptable may be reprehensible for the next citizen? A Harvey Milk, for example, may certainly think so?
It is only reasonable then, that an appropriate perspective is applied to the developments of the day. As I recall, the Dennis Chirwa tribunal was appointed to "probe alleged breach of Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act by Minister of Communications and Transport, Dora Siliya."
When it made its finding known, most so-called pundits and pub legal eagles were of the view that the tribunal's findings were ambiguous. However, the "universal" opinion was that Dora Siliya had been found in breach of the constitution by disregarding legal advice from the Attorney General. It is against this opinion that Ms. Siliya applied for judicial review challenging the "Tribunals' powers to invoke constitutional provisions which are a preserve of the High Court."
Under the circumstances, applying for a Judicial Review was well within her rights. This is especially true in a supposedly just society as is Zambia. The idea, one would like to believe, is for an accused to have the right to defend oneself, and if successful, be absolved of the charge. The implication of Judge Musonda's ruling earlier in the day is that she is fully absolved of the charge.
It would seem hypocritical to laud a judicial process only when the outcomes are punitive to the defendant. Surely Judge Musonda's ruling was not beyond the comprehension of Dora Siliya's protagonists. If Dora Siliya was not in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, surely she now qualifies for consideration and reappointment to Ministerial office?
I suspect it would be a dangerous double standard to refuse to recognise her innocence in the matter simply because she once stood accused.
Why then would this seemingly logical sequence of events raise the ire of many. One word - timing!
The combination of a mistimed appointment - shortly following the ruling - and the unforgiving court of public opinion where Dora Siliya, it appears, remains guilty, and possibly perceived to be incompetent, means this has been a political faux pas by President Banda!
It is conceivable that easing her slowly back into Government would have resulted in possibly less outrage. What would it have hurt had she been re-appointed after, say, 3 months once the matter had played itself out, and the public attention had moved on as it always does.
Undoubtedly this matter will be fodder for debate in the coming days. The question is, should President Banda have fashioned his decision to reappoint Dora Siliya to cabinet on the court of public opinion, as some would have hoped? Certainly a more interesting debate is whether Presidential appointments to Cabinet should be subject to Parliamentary approval?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
One can argue that by virtue of the fact that 1. she resigned on her own accord in order to clear her name, and 2. that she was cleared by the high court of infringing the constitution, she should be re-instated. If one is to depend on public opinion, which is largely influenced by a single news paper, then it would be obvious that even the authenticity of the ruling made by our learned high court is doubted. Never-the-less, if RB feels that there is nothing to hide and that Dora was acting in innocence, then it is only right that he ignores the siege of public opinion held by the Post Newspaper and immediately re-instate her.
Perception is a very dangerous thing. Soon the judiciary will be put on trial by the public. The public will err in perceiving that the executive had undue influence on the judiciary hence the expediency of the appointment. But it makes no difference whether the appointment was made 2 seconds after the ruling or 2 years because the premise would still be the same: She has been cleared by the high court.
Perception is a very dangerous thing. Soon the judiciary will be put on trial by the public. The public will err in perceiving that the executive had undue influence on the judiciary hence the expediency of the appointment. But it makes no difference whether the appointment was made 2 seconds after the ruling or 2 years because the premise would still be the same: She has been cleared by the high court.
The question is did Dora act with competence and in the best interest for the Zambian tax payer. What now will be the presidence of Government Ministers in dealing with public funds, are they going to sign off on contracts and not be accountable for their actions. Where does this leave the attorney general's office and the legal advice that they give to these individuals. I think these are some of the questions that need to be addressed. I think Dora in her actions, acted irresponsibly and she should not be entrusted with public resources. Furthermore is she going to be reprimanded for committing the government to US $2million dollars without tender approval, the MoU was not approved by cabinet before it was signed and bear in mind that this MoU on the advice of attonery general's chambers was not to be signed in the form it was in, she signed the MoU which was above the ministry signal sourcing threshold. If in the mind of those in government these actions by Dora are in order let it be so give her another post in government with all the benefits that come with the job. I conclude with this question if GRZ was a private company and Dora a manager acted in the manner that she did, would she still be in job?
Post a Comment