Editorial Comment: Law should be able to deter embezzlement by MPs

They can only be applied for actions taken after they are brought into effect, that is passed by both Houses of Parliament, and approved by the President, who usually sets the day that they will come into force.
We hope that the proposed rules and regulations, which Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Eric Matinenga told Parliament were now planned, will be drafted by people who not only know how such things are run but who also have seen the audit reports on constituency funds so that they know what sort of problems arise. But the fact that the new laws will only affect future disbursements does not mean Members of the House of Assembly holding constituency seats can relax. Things like poor consultations, sloppy book-keeping or incomplete calling for quotes might escape the attention of the courts. These sort of things are not criminalised as yet, although if a Member has been grossly negligent he might face civil actions.
But that does not mean more serious matters cannot be prosecuted. Theft and fraud are already crimes and a Member who converted funds to his own use can be tried and, if convicted, can be jailed if a magistrate thinks the theft was serious enough.
But offences built around proving a failure to obey statutory rules are much easier to prove or disprove than crimes such as theft by conversion, and fraud is notoriously difficult to prove. Abuse of office or a privilege are not necessarily crimes, and frequently are not seen as criminal, no matter how reprehensible they are.
It is usually straightforward to prove that a person did not keep a proper set of accounts, if such a lack of action becomes an offence. His books are simply shown to the court, an expert witness details where and how they fall short and the magistrate, even if he has zero knowledge of accountancy, can quickly decide whether the law is broken and how badly.
Unless a person committing theft by conversion simply took other people’s money from a bank account and put it straight into his pockets, it can be far more complex to build a case proving an offence took place. Money has usually to be tracked through complex accounts and each action shown to be part of a string that eventually does indeed move money from a bank to a pocket, but on a long and convoluted journey.
This is presumably why the Attorney-General is demanding a lot more detail before he decides to go ahead with a prosecution. And this same need for so much detail is presumably behind Minister Matinenga’s wish to have statutory rules whose breaches are so much easier to prove.
But this should not stop the Anti-Corruption Commission and other investigating agencies from seeing if any reasonable cases can be built after adverse audit reports have been presented. Thieving Members of Parliament should not be treated more lightly than a supermarket cashier who steals a note from the till.
But we see the problems. White collar crime is so much harder to detect and prove than bag-snatching, although a crime is a crime.
Investigators also have to be careful not to include reprehensible but non-criminal activity in the catch-all word “corruption”. Corruption is carefully defined in Zimbabwean law and the odds are that even a very dishonest Member of Parliament was probably not corrupt, although he might well be a thief.
We saw this with the “Willowgate” scandal in the 1980s. All sorts of loose allegations were made. In the end a painstaking investigation by Justice Wilson Sandura found there had been numerous breaches of price control regulations, not a particularly serious offence even then, and that was the only potential criminal activity. Several people went to court and paid very modest fines.
But he also found, and his report detailed this, gross abuse of office and influence peddling. But this is not corrupt activity, as defined by law, and while those in Government who indulged in this were forced to resign as unfit for public office, they were not guilty, and could not be found guilty, of any criminal offence.
Making the dirty dealings public, though, did clear the air and did stop this sort of thing dead. Several reputations were very badly dented.
This is why Parliament should seriously consider making the audit reports on each constituency public. This would have a double benefit.
Those who are clean and competent enough to keep proper, if simple, accounts will be cleared in the public eye, an important consideration for a Member seeking his or her party’s re-nomination and the votes of the public.
At the same time these parties might like to think seriously about re-nominating a man or a woman who cannot keep the very simple accounts required in this case, who may have favoured themselves or their friends in disbursing money, or who might even be thieves.
And the investigating authorities might well take the Attorney-General’s advice and see if they can build a strong case for a criminal trial where they suspect fraud or theft. At the very least such investigations may separate the careless or the arrogant from the criminals.