By Ezekiel Nabieu
There is no gainsaying the fact that the declaration of assets/liabilities by public servants is a splendid idea. But the ugly fact is that the vast majority of those who declare seem to have been regarding the forms with the contempt they do not deserve. Culpatisne eos? (Do you blame them?)
The execution of the laws is obviously more important than their promulgation and this is the Achilles Heel of our governments, past and present. We make room for concessions in galore.
The well-intentioned purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the emoluments of public servants are commensurate with their assets especially at their point of entry into the public service. I need not emphasize the fact that all around us are visible evidences of public servants who have got rich quickly with assets not commensurate with their assets especially at their point of entry into the public service. I need not emphasize the fact that all around us are visible evidences of public servants who have got rich quickly with assets not commensurate with their earnings. How can we account for such unexplained wealth with people who only yesterday were classed among the scrums of this country? Sometimes you could hardly believe your eyes on espying the nouveau riche.
What we are witnessing with respect to the Anti-Corruption Commission is an artful dissimulation to win the confidence of the public. But it would appear that they are not succeeding with regards to the declaration of assets which is key to the reduction (Not elimination) of corruption. Thousands of these forms are distributed to public servants of all categories as by law established. ‘Watin ar get wae ar dae fill form’ (what do I possess that I should fill a form for? an office cleaner was heard grumbling. One is apt to wonder whether the sensible thing to do was to have set a threshold at the Executive Officer level rather than the mockery into which the exercise has been thrown. I have witnessed a whole local Council refusing to fill the forms, regarding it as balder dash while office cleaners of the same Council and clerks filled them. The logical conclusion is that ministers and senior public servants are either not filling the forms or regarding them as a huge joke.
The head of state declared his assets at the beginning of his rule but has he been doing so on an annual basis? Are his ministers doing so? It is all very well to fill the forms but a more important question is: is the information in the form honestly cross checked by the legal official responsible? Are sacred cows to be present here again? Lest I forget, to every rule there is an exception so let us accept the annual filling of the forms by the Head of State, his cabinet and top bureaucrats and all will be well, all manner of things. If the Head of State can declare his assets at the beginning of his presidency (with subsequent declarations unknown) why should councilors and other VVIP public servants refuse to do so? It casts a slur on the thoroughness of the exercise per se. It is not good enough for a probing outfit. The ACC cannot practically cross check everyone of the thousands of forms, vis-à-vis their accuracy, but it is reasonable to conclude that many of them may be omitting incriminating material.
With sincerity of purpose the ACC could have been offering substantial compensations to persons whose information lead to the discovery of dishonest declarations. Or did they do so in the past? Unfortunately the Millennium Development Goals did not make specific reference to good governance and good social spending. The ACC has commendably delved into the pursuits of best practices as sort of preventive measures. But they need to pull up their socks in this serious matter of assets/ liabilities declaration.
Breaking News
The penalty of making a false declaration is Le20 million or one year’s imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment. The truth is that over the years not a single individual has been either fined or imprisoned for the offence. What a penalty! Is it a penalty?
Praise to SLBC
When an institution does well it is worthy to be praised. In this regard, the SLBC deserves praises with regard to their change of attitude towards the News Bulletin which we hope is not a one-off. On their bulletin, which usually lasts for about eight minutes, the time devoted to the President’s address was about one minute. Not only that. The time devoted to the address of the Principal of a college was about four minutes. It should come as no surprise if the editor of the bulletin was queried for failing to praise-sing the President. Rather he/she should be promoted for being professional by dishing out to the listening public real news instead of flattery. The patriotic public should be tired by now of Presidential rhetoric. PRAISE is a word abandoned by the SLBC for the fanciful word LAUD and it stops here.
Bad English
With all the galaxy of so-called English scholars at the SLBC, they still cannot get over their syntax which is the essence of the language. They cannot convince us that they do not listen to their edited news by their news readers. No excuse. Below are some of the English assassination attempts that they are up to:
- Death of the Late - This is tautologous meaning saying the same thing unnecessarily. In effect, the SLBC is saying death of the dead, which is nonsense.
- Was former – Another tautology.
- After reviewing newspapers their presenters often say “views from the newspapers DOES not represent our views. Let their editors correct this.
- Worst of all was this bad grammar recently – The minister of information has BADE farewell to his staff. I suppose by BECE standard students should have known the simple grammatical tenses of present, past, and perfect. Need I state that BIDDEN should have been the correct grammatical word in this case? Come on SLBC! These are crass blunders.
Telephone Number – whether news readers realize the effects of what they do or they are just robotic is not known. Announcing telephone numbers at breakneck speed without repetition smacks of idiocy. Do they realize that not all listeners would have paper and pen to memorize those numbers which can be up to three in some cases. Machines? This is my voice which you daily ask for but ignore with supercilious disdain.
(C) Politico 11/05/16
