I have been waiting for the dust to settle before making a comment on the events surrounding the re-appointment of Ms. Dora Siliya as Minister in the Cabinet of President Rupiah Banda.
A recap is in order. Ms. Siliya had been accused of breaching the Ministerial code of practice in three cases: awarding a tender to RP Capital the Value the assets of Zamtel without following laid down procedures, irregularities in the award of the tender to supply a new radar system at the Lusaka International Airport and finally misuse of Constituency development funds. A tribunal consisting of eminent Supreme Court judges concluded that she did breach the code by not following the advice of the Attorney General in awarding the RP Capital Tender. Ms. Siliya subsequently resigned from her position (while the President was digesting the report) and appealed the tribunal’s decision via a judicial review in the High Court. It is worth noting that she was allowed to remain in her Ministerial House and maintain her official government vehicle even after resigning from her position.
A few weeks ago, Judge Philip Musonda ruled in Ms. Siliya’s favour by stating that the tribunal overstated its mandate by bring up the issue of ignoring the advice from the Attorney General. The President swiftly (no need to take time and study the report this time) re-appointed Dora to Cabinet as Minister of Education.
I would be the first one to admit that I lack the necessary legal background to comment on this case. However, I will try and approach the matter from a common sense and good governance angle.
This case has huge implications on the office of the Attorney General. The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia provided for this important office to offer advice to government officials (political and civil) on legal matters. Why? Because it was recognised that people discharging government functions may not have the necessary legal background to execute certain transactions. The Attorney General chambers therefore provide a legal advice service to all government departments. It therefore beggars belief that a politician would act on behalf of the government contrary to legal advice provided by both the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Dora admitted during the tribunal hearings that she did not understand the advice given by the Attorney General but instead of seeking clarification, she went ahead and signed the deal. How does the country protect itself against rogue politicians and civil servant signing agreements that disadvantage the country and then plead ignorance of the law?
There is an interesting example in the UK that demonstrates the importance of the office of the Attorney General. When the UK government was contemplating joining the US in the invasion of Iraq (2003), the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) sought the advice of the Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith) on the legality of such action. It is alleged that his initial advice was that the legal basis was weak but this was firmed up following a trip to the US. Opponents of the Iraq war have fought hard to have access to the document detailing the initial advice as they believe it would prove that Tony Blair tried to act against the advice of the Attorney General. If this document had been made public at the time and had it proven that Tony Blair acted against the Attorney General’s advice (or even manipulated the Attorney General to provide favourable advice), I have no doubt in my mind that he would have had to resign.
Our politics have such low standards that the President saw nothing wrong in re-appointing Ms. Siliya. In doing so, he is sending a message to the rest of Government that the office of Attorney General is irrelevant. A more prudent approach would have been to allow Dora to spend sometime on the backbenches before being re-appointed if the President felt she was a very talented individual despite not knowing the meaning of the word nullity.
The PANEL.
A few weeks ago, Judge Philip Musonda ruled in Ms. Siliya’s favour by stating that the tribunal overstated its mandate by bring up the issue of ignoring the advice from the Attorney General. The President swiftly (no need to take time and study the report this time) re-appointed Dora to Cabinet as Minister of Education.
I would be the first one to admit that I lack the necessary legal background to comment on this case. However, I will try and approach the matter from a common sense and good governance angle.
This case has huge implications on the office of the Attorney General. The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia provided for this important office to offer advice to government officials (political and civil) on legal matters. Why? Because it was recognised that people discharging government functions may not have the necessary legal background to execute certain transactions. The Attorney General chambers therefore provide a legal advice service to all government departments. It therefore beggars belief that a politician would act on behalf of the government contrary to legal advice provided by both the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Dora admitted during the tribunal hearings that she did not understand the advice given by the Attorney General but instead of seeking clarification, she went ahead and signed the deal. How does the country protect itself against rogue politicians and civil servant signing agreements that disadvantage the country and then plead ignorance of the law?
There is an interesting example in the UK that demonstrates the importance of the office of the Attorney General. When the UK government was contemplating joining the US in the invasion of Iraq (2003), the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) sought the advice of the Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith) on the legality of such action. It is alleged that his initial advice was that the legal basis was weak but this was firmed up following a trip to the US. Opponents of the Iraq war have fought hard to have access to the document detailing the initial advice as they believe it would prove that Tony Blair tried to act against the advice of the Attorney General. If this document had been made public at the time and had it proven that Tony Blair acted against the Attorney General’s advice (or even manipulated the Attorney General to provide favourable advice), I have no doubt in my mind that he would have had to resign.
Our politics have such low standards that the President saw nothing wrong in re-appointing Ms. Siliya. In doing so, he is sending a message to the rest of Government that the office of Attorney General is irrelevant. A more prudent approach would have been to allow Dora to spend sometime on the backbenches before being re-appointed if the President felt she was a very talented individual despite not knowing the meaning of the word nullity.
The PANEL.
No comments:
Post a Comment