Political Perspective

THERE doesn’t seem to be much point in bemoaning the fact that there’s currently no ministerial responsibility, because I find it difficult to recall if there ever was any in our country. Defined by Wikipedia as ‘the state of being responsible, accountable, or answerable’ or ‘a duty, obligation or liability for which someone is held accountable’, responsibility is seldom practised in our political life in Namibia. There is a generally held belief that a minister should take the blame if something goes wrong in his ministry, even if it is not his fault, but this doesn’t happen here.

THE word ‘responsibility’ in its broader meaning should include leadership in all its facets, including State-owned enterprises, churches, private sector business, the list goes on. There’s also individual responsibility, collective responsibility, moral and media responsibility, and while I would emphasise generally that EVERY ONE of us has a number of responsibilities which we should exercise, the focus of this column is on the lack of accountability at senior level in Government and state-owned enterprises and which concerns our tax dollars.Again according to Wikipedia: ‘Ministerial responsibility or individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention in governments using the Westminster System that a cabinet minister bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions of their ministry or department. Individual ministerial responsibility is not the same as cabinet collective responsibility, which states members of the cabinet must approve publicly of its collective decisions or resign … Where there is ministerial responsibility, the accountable minister is expected to take the blame, and ultimately resign. ‘This means that if waste, corruption, or any other misbehaviour is found to have occurred within a ministry, the minister is responsible even if the minister had no knowledge of the actions. ‘A minister is ultimately responsible for all actions by a ministry. Even without knowledge of an infraction by subordinates the minister approved the hiring and continued employment of those civil servants. If misdeeds are found to have occurred in a ministry the minister is expected to resign. It is also possible for a minister to face criminal charges for malfeasance under their watch’.Now while Westminster principles in purer form don’t necessarily apply to our Government, although we’re based on them, responsibility should ensure that an elected official is answerable for every single government decision. It is also important to motivate ministers to closely scrutinise the activities within their departments.In recent years some commentators have argued the notion of ministerial responsibility has been eroded in many Commonwealth countries. While the doctrine is a constitutional convention there is no formal mechanism for enforcing the rule. Today ministers frequently use ignorance of misbehaviour as an argument for lack of culpability and courts in the UK, for example, have become less likely to find ministers guilty when their individual knowledge of or involvement in a crime cannot be proved. In most other Commonwealth countries such cases are today hardly ever brought to trial.If our political elite in Namibia are as concerned about corruption as they claim to be, then maybe it is time we start exercising the responsibility principle. For without it, there is no accountability on the part of Government and one of the few mechanisms we have in place, such as the asset register for MPs, have no meaning or worth as the public don’t have insight.We have had any number of cases involving corruption or wrongdoing and maladministration, and at no point has a Minister voluntarily resigned because of the responsibility principle. Neither have they faced steps as a result. Much of the wrongdoing has been associated with parastatals, which resort under applicable Ministries, but even in these cases, disciplinary proceedings have seldom taken their course as the CEO in question conveniently resigns or a deal is struck. The only attrition rate at high level is due to political differences or retirement.Where there has clearly been wrongdoing, for example in the missing NDF N$3-million, the Minister at the time faced no consequence at all, and the Permanent Secretary was simply moved to another Ministry. This, apparently, is our way of dealing with corruption, namely, not the boot, but a transfer. How then can we be expected to take seriously Government assurances that the missing monies are being investigated? Quite clearly, they’ve been covered up already and we will never have closure on this matter. There are a host of similar examples.Presently we have a case of huge N$200 million TransNamib expenditure on rail carriages that ‘don’t fit the rails’ but there’s absolutely no talk of anyone who’s expected to face the music over the decision to purchase. The media ‘watchdog’ coverage, therefore, is almost academic, because there will not be any consequences.So our Government can never be serious about corruption unless they entrench the principle of responsibility. And we’re not serious about the Zero Tolerance campaign or the March against Corruption unless we see to it that those top jobs come with clear accountability to the taxpayers of this country.