EDITORIAL COMMENT : Anti-corruption forces building up

THERE has been a welcome, but growing trickle of criminal cases based on attempts by police and others in authority to try and extort money, in effect demanding bribes, with more members of the public now willing to take action.

Reports have been made via the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, possibly because people felt they wanted a body independent of the police or security agencies for at least the initial report, but now confidence has been building up in the police and the latest arrest arose from a report made to internal investigations at the national police headquarters, and the trap set and arrest made by that unit.

There have been cases where the person asked to pay the bribe was themselves a criminal, although often the crime was not as serious as the bribe being demanded, and the victim, while still probably having to face some music, will also be able to have their high level of co-operation taken into account.

We unfortunately yet to have the sort of system that is common in much of the United States, where the district attorneys, those who prosecute criminal cases, can present formal deals to criminal courts, sometimes on reduced charges and often on reduced sentences in return for full details. And perhaps we should start to look at this sort of deal.

But our legal system has other ways such as the accomplice witness, and magistrates will at least think about the level of co-operation of an accused in many cases, and sometimes the bent police officer is so much worse than the minor criminal that informal arrangements can and should be made.

In other cases the police can be more helpful to the victims. The latest arrest involves a police officer who was able to use his knowledge of what he assumed were clandestine meetings between a woman and a friend to try and blackmail the couple. He wanted US$2 000 or would tell a spouse.

Here those being shaken down had committed no crime, but would have preferred confidentiality.

The blackmailing police officer put them through a number of hoops to try and soften them up but eventually they went to police internal investigations.

One interesting point is that, as is becoming more common in these sort of cases, the Prosecutor General and the police were not desperate or even willing to make the names of those latched on by the bent police public.

This could be formalised in court proceedings, and we think should be, rather like the victim in a rape case.

The name adds nothing to the criminal charges against the accused and where we have cases that a police officer is simply trying to convert their knowledge and authority into a way to earn money criminally, the victim should be able to have their identity kept private and magistrates should be willing to enforce that.

This will help bring more people forward, and allow the authorities to weed out the dishonest from the police and other law enforcement entities, including the courts themselves, where again there has been a build-up of people willing to pass along information.

Once people get used to the idea of having their complaints attended to seriously and find themselves talking to honest and respectable officers, more people will talk.

This is one of the most effective ways to end corruption within police and law enforcement circles, simply by restoring that sense of civic pride in a police force.

At the same time people who do get into trouble with individual police officers, and are threatened, should be willing to approach the investigations section, and while passing along information also discuss their concerns over publicity, or lack of publicity, and other worries. It seems clear that the top echelons of the police force want this rooted out.

It might also need some further co-operation with the media, not really a problem with the formal media but a distinct problem with the social media platforms, where anyone can publish almost anything, no matter how hurtful.

This can present more openings for extortion and blackmail, and once again present a good case for where people can make formal complaints about what others publish on the social media platforms.

The formal media have over more than a century built up the areas where they can publish without harm, areas where they have to have a reasonable amount of factual information, and areas where they need to be careful for ethical rather than legal reasons to avoid harming the innocent.

Under our legal system, someone who publishes harmful facts that happen to be true cannot just rely on a defence of truth.

They also need to show that there is a public benefit in that publication, something that can protect non-public figures from the worst intrusions of privacy. But fairly obviously better ways of guarding privacy need to be developed.

We cannot have someone putting out information on social media to be necessarily a good judge of what should be left unsaid.

But the main defence and deterrence against blackmailers is the fact that extortion is a crime, a serious one, and while the blackmailer threatens their victims, the victims can fight back by making a formal complaint.

If the worst should come to the worst, the extortionist will be going to jail, not the victim. And that in itself will beat back this menace, now that everyone knows the police as well as ZACC will take full action.