At the moment, the ability and prospects of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime to fight corruption seem overdone.
The DCEC, we must point out from the onset is a noble creation that if given the necessary tools can still redeem itself.
There are many handicaps standing in the organisation’s path to fulfill its mandate.
That is worrisome, firstly because if not addressed promptly, it might lead the public to lose in the ability of DCEC to perform the public duties for which it was created.
Another reason other than loss of faith is that officers working for DCEC might along the way simply give up and leave the organization. And even if they do not leave, there is a real possibility that they might lose enthusiasm which would be sad because by nature, fighting corruption in today’s world is an onerous task, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of crime.
Having said that we are of the view that notwithstanding all the known difficulties in which it operates, it really might be time the DCEC did something to redeem itself.
It cannot be enough to complain that its officers are not sufficiently trained.
Or that given its salary structure it is not able to attract such specialized personnel like auditors, lawyers, accountants and other forms of crack investigators.
While the troubles of DCEC started as an issue of underinvestment in the form of insufficient funding, made worse by inappropriate staffing, the issue has now effectively morphed towards inadequate leadership.
There is also a public perception that there is not enough detachment between the DCEC and the political executive.
This one is true, very much the same way like it is the case with Parliament.
While there is room for improving the piece of statute that controls the DCEC it is also worth pointing out that the leadership has to be more assertive in making do with what they currently have.
That by the way was the case during the early days of the DCEC.
There was a lot of public goodwill lent the DCEC because there was innate appreciation of what the organization was trying to do.
Not only that, at the time there was also a great deal of anticipation among the public of the great potential that was in the DCEC.
In return, the DCEC moved swiftly to investigate cases.
There was also a lot of interface, public education and communication by the DCEC. With time DCEC seems to have recoiled into a cocoon.
There is not a lot of interface with the public.
More worryingly, as a result a perception has been created that DCEC sits on cases and even on dockets for exceedingly far too long.
This of course might have a lot to do with the fact that in the past cases that had gone for prosecution having been investigated by DCEC were later to be dismissed by the courts.
Understandably this might have forced them to be more circumspect.
That if it is the case is a good thing.
But when it now goes on to even undermine the mandate of DCEC, then there is problem.
There is no disputing the fact that the founding Act of Parliament establishing DCEC needs to be reviewed.
It has been overtaken by time and events.
Our hope is that such a law would give more powers to the head of DCEC by making them directly accountable to Parliament through the Speaker.
If the head of DCEC is not given more powers, then it is difficult to see how under the current setup they could withstand executive outreach, even during under the most magnanimous political leadership.
