Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:58:27 +0000
THE intriguing scandal surrounding the unfolding events at the Lusaka City Council (LCC) showing how some local authority officials have embraced illegality for personal aggrandisement must be firmly and swiftly dealt with.
Currently, it is evident the Council finds itself in a highly compromised position because the status quo at the local authority has been tolerated, hence breeding a cabal of thieving individuals that sees nothing wrong engaging in corrupt activities.
Revelations that the Chinese who are constructing a four-storey shopping mall in Kalundu registered their business with PACRA and that were given title to land before they legalised their stay in Zambia is not surprising.
What explanation can PACRA, Ministry of Lands, Immigration Department and LCC give for allowing foreign nationals owning land before they are legally eligible?
Much as these foreign nationals come into Zambia as investors, standard investment practice demands that they adhere to relevant investment legislation and policy of the country they show interest to invest in.
And in our case, the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) Act is succinct in regard. A non-Zambian can only own property if they have an entry permit which gives them permanent residency in Zambia.
According to the Act, a non-Zambian can apply for an entry permit if they have been in continuous employment for 12 years under a work permit or have held a self-employment permit for three years and run a viable business.
Further, it provides that a non-Zambian can own property by being a minority shareholder in a company incorporated in Zambia where citizens own 75 percent of the shares.
However, details gathered from the Ministry of Lands indicate that Shumeite Investments Limited was given title to Plot no. 5477 on December 8, 2016, at the time none of the three Chinese nationals who exclusively own the company had made their stay in Zambia permanent. Is this not corruption?
What is more bizarre is that only two of the three Chinese directors have requisite permits to be in Zambia whereas the other does not have but for a report order. Does it mean none of the officials responsible for issuing out land bothered to verify such basic facts?
As we envisaged, the exposure of the LCC corruption scandal is a mere tip of the iceberg. It is clear there is more to it than meets the eye.
Surely, does all this evidence not provide a basis for prosecution of those involved in these skirmishes? Where are the relevant investigative wings to effect arrests on culprits?
The laxity with which cases of corruption such as these are probed and consequently handled by institutions tasked with the responsibility to bring erring officials to book has often times not only discouraged whistle blowers but also defeated desired the ends of justice.
It is high time investigative wings began to be proactive rather than reactive in the manner they conduct their investigations. It is only when this is done that members of the public will have respect and confidence in such important institutions. For as long as an institution like the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) remains passive, it is indirectly abetting corruption.
Whenever a government entity neglects to perform its legally mandated functions for whatever reason, the devastating effects are not only hard to contemplate but irreversible. But where is the ACC to probe and prosecute culprits?
