Online Reporter
CITY and municipal councils, local boards and rural district councils come in for a lot of criticism by their residents, especially as they are so closely linked to the people they serve and some planning and procurement decisions might well be unpopular.
We know, from several inquiries, that some questionable decisions could well be rooted in corruption, although we always have to keep open the possibility that a council might simply be incompetent, rather than corrupt.
Now the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission and the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works are taking the allegations seriously and have established a special joint task force to investigate further.
This cooperation is important.
The ministry officials have that detailed knowledge of how councils are supposed to operate and the criteria they are supposed to use when making planning decisions or buying goods and services.
The commission has the expertise on investigations and the legal right to follow up alleged or suspected corruption.
So tight teams drawn from the local government experts and from the corruption investigators should be able to uncover any dubious decisions and be able to assemble the evidence if criminal activity is suspected, so those committing any offences can be brought to court with the prosecutors being given enough hard evidence to make a good case.
One major set of dubious decisions involves planning permission, and changes always produce groups who are for or against such permits, especially from those in any particular area that is likely to see major changes if certain developments take place. Often the changes seem to be badly publicised before the final decision is made and the tree-cutters and concrete mixers are moved in.
This produces an extra set of problems, for practical purposes stifling public debate before the decision is made and that in turn raises suspicion that undue influence or corrupt activity has played a part. Most major cities around the world have these sort of complaints and there is a strong record of property developers having close ties to councillors, and bribes being paid.
With ministry officials in the investigating teams it might well be useful to see if legal processes thought adequate half a century ago are still meaningful and still allow people to have a say in how their city, town or suburb should be developed.
Among the very questionable planning decisions that must be investigated are the conversion of public open spaces, wetlands and even protected sites for future schools to high-value commercial stands that will make fortunes for property developers and generate the sort of wealth that can be shared with co-operative councillors.
Some of these conversions might well be legal, if not desired by many in the neighbourhood, but others are almost certainly illegal. The grey area of hiding the proposed changes while going through what amounts to legal processes, so great is the planning authority of a city or municipal council, will be particularly taxing for the corruption investigators. What the minutes say might not be what actually happened.
At the same time the investigations will probably be flooded with people objecting to what are safely legal decisions firmly anchored in master plans and local plans. The densification of many formerly low-density suburbs with cluster housing is one example, totally legal even if it alters the historical development. The criminal activity is more likely when the open spaces are handed over.
Procurement opens another set of allegations, totally unreasonable purchases and selections of service providers. Again municipal and city councils have a lot of independence in what they buy from whom. And again the problem will be trying to determine if the exceptionally dubious purchase decision was just incompetent or whether something more harmful was involved.
The biggest problem with corruption is that it is not displayed in public and both those paying bribes or paying other benefits, and those receiving these, usually go to great lengths to hide their activity and make sure it is not recorded. No one pays a bribe in front of bright lights and cameras.
This is where whistle-blowers become important, people involved even at a low level in a decision or in processing a decision and who pass the information on to the relevant investigating authorities. Often these are the only ones, besides the principals, who can tell whether something is illegal or corrupt.
External influences can also block some very crucial decisions, as we saw in Harare when the outcry over the cost of a proposed new accounting system was so loud that the council reverted to the course chartered by the Auditor General’s Officer to reinstate an abandoned system.
We wish the joint investigation well, the fact that they are in progress should help tame the local councils and make sure that they think through their decisions and do their job properly so they do not find themselves on yet another list of investigations.
daniel chigunwe