By Monaheng Seeiso Rasekoai
The preamble of the seven-year-old article penned by the same author hereof read something like this: ‘The reality is that whenever a debate on corruption comes to the mould, it often amounts to a theatrical performance by politicians and ordinary citizens alike who endeavour to ride on a high horse and pose as ethical virgins like Jeffrey Archer’s fictitious character in Clean Sweep Ignatius.’
The fictional protagonist in the book penned by a British author and erstwhile member of parliament reflects a corrupt Ghanaian Finance Minister who stole from the state coffers but running a successful narrative in the media platforms that he was fighting and chasing the corrupt when he himself was at the center of corruption. This point was raised almost a decade ago to motivate a case against those chasing those who chase the corrupt.
The depiction of Knorx Molelle as an administrative misfit for running the most important and delicate law enforcement institution in the country in the enclave country was attempting to explain, perhaps in somewhat misconceived fashion why he must be fired.
To attribute the success or failure of a public institution to a single man would be a misnomer. DCEO is the most important law enforcement agency in this country. A law enforcement agency is only as good as the support that it receives from the public.
Only demonstrated performance produces the respect and cooperation necessary to achieve results DCEO responsibilities demand – and which the public has every right to expect. This attention to a goal of excellence requires its sacrifices.
It means long, often grueling, hours of work on the part of the agents of the institution…some of the critics of the institution may charge it or its agents with being a compromised body with no real relevance in the modern society.
But most of the criticisms geared towards this institution fall short of the recognition that the trust that must be generated from the proper discharge of DCEO responsibilities. This fact leaves little room for error. A law enforcement agency, by the very nature of its duties, is an easy and natural target of criticism and it comes as no surprise when loud noise is made about its institutional head.
The real noise is not about the man, but the institution and his removal serve as a move by agitators to weaken the institution not the man. The man does not matter! When a debate about the removal of a law enforcement agency head comes to the mold, it is a mix of both scandal and political bigotry and the public narrative is anchored to focus on the man not the institutional mandate.
The powerful and fallacious narrative run by agitators is that the institutional head of DCEO is weak and by extension the institution is weak, and the hidden motive is for them to freely chase their corrupt shadows and to run amok with ease and in the interim an alternative shall be sourced who shall ‘save’ the institution from the disrepute. Whatever that means! A vicious circle!
Over the past decade heads of NSS, LMPS and LDF have never been removed from office without an air of both scandal and political bigotry. But this scenario is far more eclectic and nerve-wrecking for one or so many reasons for which an attempt to dissect shall be made.
Since the explosive yet ‘truncated’ clips emerged there have been shocking misrepresentations and the exaggerations of those who wrote and commented on the subject and by extension the persons who are the subject of the clip. But the central theme was and is, the symbiotic Knorx Molelle-DCEO relationship, an exaggerated picture of the man and his role in law enforcement. He was painted as all hero or villain. Oddly enough, ecstatic praise and unmitigated criticism crossed ideological lines.
It is December 2024 and hardly eleven months since assumption of duty by the institutional head of DCEO, and some grueling sounds of disenchantment are boiling from specified groups of cartels masquerading as politicians when in reality theirs is a project of self-aggrandizement and the purchase and sale of the country’s limited resources.
This boiling wind has conjured up the perfect conditions for a storm to have one of the most decorated law enforcement officers the country has ever seen removed through an anatomy of a scandal and the stage is well set.
The debate around the anatomy of the scandal cannot be assessed or debated escaping the harsh reality that over the eleven months of his assumption of duty, he by then had assumed and had become the object of increasing, ultimately almost boundless, mass adulation from his professional peers particularly those in law enforcement and participants in the administration of justice and judicial circles.
This scenario equally attracted the same intense hatred from those whose mileage runs from the political polls and are seasoned conflict entrepreneurs whose relevance stems from controversy than ideological outlook and vision.
Among those turning thumbs down, are members of the executive and legislative branch and political allies and one may dare suggest – corruption cartels both outside and inside the civil service and at the helm of the state institutions who are likely suspects in a trail of criminal investigations being embarked upon.
The focus of criticisms lies on the alleged disclosure of state information and by extension, sedition for some and treason for others. Purported ‘sabotage’ for those aligned to the ruling political party. The focus was openly elusive on the sleuths-versus-criminals and the curious relationship between the political elite, government bureaucrats and the criminal cartels outside the civil service who abuse the resources of the state.
The opportunism that may be exploited by those whose actions are on the radar is the currency to be attained when the esteem and dignity of such an important law enforcement agency is tainted. The clips are a classic illustration of an anatomy of a scandal to shape the minds of feeble-minded members of the public for self-serving ends.
But in the real sense this ‘truncated clips scandal’ is more of an advantage than a disadvantage for reasons which I shall strive to articulate in this effort of public policy critique.
The short-sighted politicians and compromised public servants alike must care to observe that they fall under a category of Politically Exposed Persons under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act and are evidently the prime focus of the law enforcement agency. A situation which they openly tread and the extent to which they loathe being on the wrong side of the law.
Corruption is a scourge that must be rooted out of our society. It has the potential to undermine the ability of the State to deliver on many of its obligations in the Bill of Rights. It cripples service delivery in the public sector, the construction and maintenance of roads and the provision of essential public services in the health sector and many other facets of public discourse funded by the state.
The institution must have the power to initiate its own investigations; allow investigators and prosecutors autonomous decision-making powers in handling cases; not be the subject to undue influence from any of the branches of government or any third party; and have structural and operational autonomy.
The same applies with its institutional head, the issue that mainly attracts the ire of the corrupt Politically Exposed Persons lies in the decisional and functional independence of the institutional head of the DCEO.
A politically uncontrollable head of a law enforcement agency like the DCEO is poison in this context.
It has been established by tony intellectuals that independence primarily means that the anti-corruption bodies should be shielded from undue political interference. To this end, genuine political will to fight corruption is the key prerequisite. Such political will must be embedded in a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy.
The level of independence can vary according to specific needs and conditions. Experience suggests that it is the structural and operational autonomy that is important, along with a clear legal basis and mandate for a special body, department or unit. This is particularly important for law enforcement bodies. Transparent procedures for appointment and removal of the director together with proper human resources management and internal controls are important elements to prevent undue interference.
Independence should not amount to a lack of accountability; specialized services should adhere to the principles of the rule of law and human rights, submit regular performance reports to executive and legislative bodies, and enable public access to information on their work.
The real threat that confronts the DCEO to which most Basotho must reflect is the fact that government officials privatize law enforcement institutions and by extension the public sphere. Members of the cabinet and by extension their allies in the legislature who often gloat on calling themselves ‘government’ often thrive at an air of delusion of grandeur with an illusion that they cannot be touched by the arm of the law…they can and ultimately, they will…state money is easy to trace in the 21st Century.
Nepotism, abuse of office and all forms and mannerisms of cronyism are equally legally reprehensible and traceable. They are Politically Exposed Persons and this adjective in legalese extends to their next of kin and allies. They should know! It may happen whilst they are in government or right after their exit but the temperatures are fast rising and professionals are growing bitter over destruction of careers for political gains born out of political incorrectness.
In greater measure a creation of social expectations that there are politicians or government bureaucrats who cannot be touched due to allegiance to the ruling class is likely to wane away. Politicians have no code of ethics and neither do they get academically trained and vetted prior to assumption of office.
They assume institutional power of the state, a role made possible only through the underestimation, mistakes, weakness and collaboration of those qualified to vote but somewhat less enlightened on governance matters.
It is up to the professionals and technocrats to reflect on this and state whether they are ready to sacrifice their professions at the altar of political expediency.
