Political Perspective: Politics And Publicity

IT IS no wonder we cannot tackle corruption effectively in this country when there appears to be pervasive ignorance, even at the highest ranks of Government, about what constitutes graft.

While it may be relatively easy to define worst-case scenarios in terms of this scourge, and these generally have to do with misappropriation of large amounts of money, there are nevertheless many apparently acceptable practices, which in reality are grey areas that most people tend to overlook. The Anti-Corruption Act of 2003 does deal with these, but how many people, let alone public figures, have bothered to acquaint themselves with this law in its entirety, and question their own actions in light of it? A CASE in point involves President Hifikepunye Pohamba.This week the media were sent a press release dated March 26, and which read as follows: “The President of the Republic of Namibia Hifikepunye Pohamba made his first call from Cell One’s network, the second mobile operator in Namibia.”Mac Allman, CEO of Cell One presented the President with a Cell One SIM card and phone.After which the President made a successful call to his home village.”President Hifikepunye Pohamba congratulated Cell One on the launch of its services in Windhoek, which coincided with the opening of Cell One shops on 16 March 2007”.(Photo at bottom of this column).The upshot of this was that President Pohamba got a new cellphone valued at approximately N$2 500, plus a Sim card, and the business in question certainly got excellent mileage in terms of advertising their product.For this act to have constituted corruption in its purest form, the President would have had to have been instrumental or used his influence to obtain a licence for the cellphone company in question, and we have no reason to believe that he did, or that their licence was obtained in any devious or underhand manner.The ‘questionable activity’, if one can put it like that, was more on the part of the President than of the cellphone company itself.Any business knows that an endorsement from none other than the Head of State is worth a lot, certainly far more than the N$2 500 cellphone.I don’t blame them for trying, and I’m sure many other companies envy the fact that they got this right.It seems to be par for the course for Ministers (Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah got a cellphone too at the official launch of the company in question!) but this is, after all, the President, our Head of State, who is endorsing a particular product, and it does not befit his position to do PR work like this.We’ve warned against this in the past on several occasions.In the wider sense, people may argue that the Head of State and top officials or Ministers for that matter, do want to encourage investment and growth of business in Namibia, but they must be circumspect as to what they do and how they do it, especially when gifts are given.We had a similar instance with the former Head of State who opened a factory and was given a bursary, which he accepted at the time.It was only after the fact that denials were issued.We have to draw the line somewhere because other businesses will follow suit with requests of this kind to the President, and he has already set a precedent in this regard.One can imagine how the image of our Head of State would be cheapened if he was to be used to advertise his favourite bank, restaurant, men’s outfitter or the like! People will argue naiveté, and it may be so.But it is not an acceptable argument.The President spearheads the campaign against corruption, and if he doesn’t yet know what’s questionable and what’s not, then he must be properly advised.He could have welcomed the investment in this case, without being used as the ‘poster boy’ for the product in question and/or having accepted the gift that came with it.It would have constituted better judgement and would have been more in keeping with his position as first citizen of Namibia.The Anti-Corruption Act of 2003 does deal with these, but how many people, let alone public figures, have bothered to acquaint themselves with this law in its entirety, and question their own actions in light of it? A CASE in point involves President Hifikepunye Pohamba.This week the media were sent a press release dated March 26, and which read as follows: “The President of the Republic of Namibia Hifikepunye Pohamba made his first call from Cell One’s network, the second mobile operator in Namibia.”Mac Allman, CEO of Cell One presented the President with a Cell One SIM card and phone.After which the President made a successful call to his home village.”President Hifikepunye Pohamba congratulated Cell One on the launch of its services in Windhoek, which coincided with the opening of Cell One shops on 16 March 2007”.(Photo at bottom of this column).The upshot of this was that President Pohamba got a new cellphone valued at approximately N$2 500, plus a Sim card, and the business in question certainly got excellent mileage in terms of advertising their product.For this act to have constituted corruption in its purest form, the President would have had to have been instrumental or used his influence to obtain a licence for the cellphone company in question, and we have no reason to believe that he did, or that their licence was obtained in any devious or underhand manner.The ‘questionable activity’, if one can put it like that, was more on the part of the President than of the cellphone company itself.Any business knows that an endorsement from none other than the Head of State is worth a lot, certainly far more than the N$2 500 cellphone.I don’t blame them for trying, and I’m sure many other companies envy the fact that they got this right.It seems to be par for the course for Ministers (Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah got a cellphone too at the official launch of the company in question!) but this is, after all, the President, our Head of State, who is endorsing a particular product, and it does not befit his position to do PR work like this.We’ve warned against this in the past on several occasions.In the wider sense, people may argue that the Head of State and top officials or Ministers for that matter, do want to encourage investment and growth of business in Namibia, but they must be circumspect as to what they do and how they do it, especially when gifts are given.We had a similar instance with the former Head of State who opened a factory and was given a bursary, which he accepted at the time.It was only after the fact that denials were issued.We have to draw the line somewhere because other businesses will follow suit with requests of this kind to the President, and he has already set a precedent in this regard.One can imagine how the image of our Head of State would be cheapened if he was to be used to advertise his favourite bank, restaurant, men’s outfitter or the like! People will argue naiveté, and it may be so.But it is not an acceptable argument.The President spearheads the campaign against corruption, and if he doesn’t yet know what’s questionable and what’s not, then he must be properly advised.He could have welcomed the investment in this case, without being used as the ‘poster boy’ for the product in question and/or having accepted the gift that came with it.It would have constituted better judgement and would have been more in keeping with his position as first citizen of Namibia.