‘Donors or no donors, cashgate cases are serious’
Recently, the High Court in Zomba sentenced Cashgate convict Oswald Lutepo to 11 years in prison with hard labour. EPHRAIM NYONDO talked to political scientist Dr Michael Jana on what he makes of the ruling. Excerpts:
Q
: What was your immediate reaction to the news that Lutepo has been slapped with 11 years jail term?
A
: I think this is a good development and I was happy that one of the cases on theft of public resources has reached its finality. Hopefully, this will be followed by recovery of property and cash stolen from government.
Q
: In fighting corruption and abuse, where would you locate Lutepo’s sentencing?
A
: Prosecuting corruption cases is one of the strategies to fight against corruption. Much as it happens after public resources have already been looted and there is no guarantee of recovering all the looted public resources, it may deter and prevent future corrupt practices especially when mixed with other strategies.
Q
: Generally, is there evidence to believe that conviction and sentencing of alleged law breakers helps to deter would-be law breakers?
A
: In corruption cases, to my knowledge, there is no systematic study in Malawi establishing the deterrent effect of convictions, except just presenting people’s perceptions. Using evidence from elsewhere, however, there is some, though limited, evidence of the deterrent effect of prosecutions and convictions. There is limited effect partly because deterrence depends, among other things, on the type of evidence used against the convicts. In Lutepo’s case, I think the deterrent effect is even more limited given that he himself pleaded guilty. Future offenders, for instance, may not plead guilty; they may simply find ways of making it difficult for the state to prove them guilty. Given this limited deterrence, it is advisable that, in any fight against official corruption, deterrent measures should be mixed with preventive measures; we should not only rely on legal prosecutions of corrupt cases, but also use behavioral and structural measures such as dealing with the motivation for corruption, and developing our private sector.
Q
: You argue that every Malawian is a potential vampire of state resources because most of the money in Malawi are with and in government. Do you think having strong penalties to law breakers helps in disciplining public officers?
A
: Indeed, every Malawian is a potential vampire of state resources; I mean, if we have a thin private sector as is the case in Malawi, then the state remains the only fat cow to milk. In this context, strong penalties will not have the desired effect. We need to complement the legal measures by addressing the behavioral and structural issues. If, for instance, public officers are well-paid, have high ethical standards, and we have a vibrant private sector, there will be little motivation to steal state resources. But if we stick to legal measures at the expense of preventive measures that address the motivation for corruption, and indeed improve the welfare of the people, many offenders will always find ways to prevent or survive prosecution.
Q
: How do you assess the level at which government is moving in bringing to trial those accused of being involved in Cashgate?
A
: I think there are many cases and Malawi Government does not have the capacity to prosecute all those cases at the speed many stakeholders would wish. But I think government should be given some credit for pursuing the cases we have witnessed so far. Hopefully, all suspects will be brought before the courts without favour. But I guess one issue of concern to many Malawians is whether Malawi government will be able to recover the stolen resources. I don’t think all stolen resources will be recovered but government needs to try to salvage something.
Q
: Donors have remained unshaken in withholding aid. With recent convictions and sentencing of some who have been involved in Cashgate, do you think donors are still justified to be mean with their aid?
A
: Look, I am not always comfortable when people link Malawi’s progress in prosecuting Cashgate suspects to resumption of aid. Unfortunately, it seems these issues are linked by many stakeholders including the donors. And I am not sure what percentage of donor money versus Malawi taxpayers’ money was stolen. But in my opinion, donors or no donors, Cashgate cases are serious and needs to be prosecuted. Whether donors are justified in withholding aid in this context to me is neither here nor there. In any case, the whole aid regime is political. We have seen in the past the same donors supporting corrupt leaders like Mobutu Sese Seko. So, much as I don’t condone official corruption, I think Malawi government and the donors can strike a deal at the moment to resume aid and support Malawi’s economy. And Malawi government should not only look to the donors but work towards economic independence.
Q
: Anything you can add?
A
: I guess just to sum up; I think Lutepo’s prosecution is a good development. But we need to complement such legal measures with behavioral and structural measures to fight official corruption and theft of public resources.
