Justice purchased is an enduring cancer to any Republic

AS PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe celebrated his 11th birthday (as he described it i.e. 8 plus 3), the state of the nation ought to have been in his mind and there can be no better concern for any head of state than the economic, political and social challenges that confront the country.
I read the article, ”RBZ pacifies restive judges”, published by the Zimbabwe Independent on 23 February 2007 with great interest not only because it comes on the back of a commitment by the RBZ Governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, that the RBZ had stopped quasi-fiscal operations, but because the implications of the RBZ donating assets to the judiciary circumventing the budgetary process in resource allocation poses a threat to the quality and independence of the judiciary.
It was reported that the donation by the RBZ was in the form of 30 vehicles, 30 laptops, and 30 desktop computers that included Toyota IMV trucks. This came on the back of the complaint by Judge President Rita Makarau last month about the lack of resources available to the judiciary and the implicit threat that if there is no intervention, Zimbabwe should not expect an independent judiciary.
Instead of the government responding by frame-working the resource requirements of the judiciary in conjunction with other sectors, the RBZ responds with real resources without any disclosure on the source of the funds. If Judge Makarau’s prayer is answered in a month, how should other equally deserving departments of government access resources? Is the Makarau formula, a harbinger to how the government should be responding to the needs of the governed? What is so special about the judiciary that the RBZ would come to the rescue?
This led me to locate the role of the judiciary in the post-Mugabe era. Could it be that a compromised judiciary may be handy to any political aspirant who may have something to hide?
What is interesting about the story is the denial by the Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs that the donation was in response to Justice Makarau’s complaints about poor conditions for judges. This is what the Minister is reported to have said: “Yes we got the cars and the computers which we will be distributing to the judges soon. In fact, some of them already have their cars. There is nothing sinister about the donation from the central bank because those are state funds they are using."
It is not clear from the Minister’s statement under what construction would the use of state funds outside the budgetary process be classified as a donation? Who is donating to whom and for what benefit?
Minister Chinamasa then proceeded to say that his ministry was planning to train the judges in the use of the computers. There are about 45 judges in the country.
A number of troubling questions emerge from the conduct of the RBZ and the contradictions raised by the Minister’s response. If the computers are part of the capital expenditure program of the Ministry, then it is not clear why would the funds be treated as a donation? Who procured the computers? Were state procurement guidelines used in the procurement process? Who supplied the computers? What is government policy on donations of hardware by quasi-state actors? Who approved the donation at the RBZ? What was the role of the Ministry in the donation arrangement?
It was also reported that the issue of equity emerged when labour court judges also demanded that they benefit from the donated vehicles. In other words, they were legitimately questioning why if state resources were used; only a select few were targeted as beneficiaries. Having been a victim of Makarau’s judgment in a matter in which my company sued the Minister of Justice, it occurred to me cynically that I should not have expected any justice when the Judge President is a beneficiary of an opaque governance and resource allocation scheme.
I could not help but wonder whether the speech by Makarau was orchestrated to generate the kind of response that we now see where no-one can accuse the RBZ of interfering in the resource allocation process through quasi-fiscal activities, when it is now common cause that to get justice in Zimbabwe, you need to placate the judiciary. It confirms that where things fall apart, it pays to threaten the executive.
While the RBZ Governor has made the stand on devaluation that there will not be any devaluation unless there is a social contract to provide a framework for managing the hyperinflationary environment, it is surprising that he could not tell Makarau that they also should wait until the political and economic crisis is resolved through a social contract before the so-called donation can be made.
I can only pity those that may appear before any of the beneficiaries of the computers and cars in a case involving the Governor of the RBZ and the Minister of Justice. Can you really expect that these judges will forget where their car keys came from? Equally, can you expect the Makarau gang to join the regime change chorus? It is true that justice purchased is an enduring threat and cancer to any Republic established on the doctrine of the separation of the three pillars of the state. I shudder to think what would happen if citizens were to match the donations to the judiciary that we now see coming from the government through the RBZ.
I think that the actions of the RBZ on the financing of the judiciary should open a window for Zimbabweans to debate on what kind of Republic they should have. Yes, 27 years after independence, we find that the President through his cabinet is failing to manage the state to the extent that donations become a substitute for a budget. Where is the Minister of Finance? Where is the CEO of Zimbabwe? Who should be culpable for the state of affairs? In the words of our founding fathers, may be donations are necessary to fight the diabolical policies of Blair!