ALL THOSE WITH EVIDENCE OF CORRUPION IN THE SILVERDALW FARM CASE PLEASE SEND IT IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS: email@example.com
Exposing corruption has risks, but it pays
People and institutions engaged in corruption, particularly the corruption of the so-called grand type, are usually so connected, powerful and influential and have such “vigilant feelers” to help feed their information bases and generally safeguard their selfish interests that it would be highly risky taking them lightly.
Like other forms of crime, corruption can get so extremely vicious as not to spare anybody or anything in its path - which is in part why some people are shaken to the roots at the mere mention or appearance of corrupt elements, the especially gullible or timid finding themselves with no option but to subscribe to the “if you can’t beat them, join them” maxim.
But the corrupt know for a fact that their ways are criminal and therefore anti-social, which means that they are seldom really as bold as most appear on the surface. They may masquerade as fearless giants, but expose them to the full wrath of the law and public anger and you discover that they tremble like leaves in a fierce wind because they are brittle indeed deep inside.
And that is not all there is to the foibles of the corrupt elements, particularly if one takes the trouble to leaf through Tanzania’s Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act of 2007.
For instance, alongside exhaustively elaborating on what are deemed to constitute offences falling under the broad term known as corruption, this piece of legislation states categorically: “Any informer who shall suffer reprisal or retaliation or victimisation or injury or any harm from a person accused of corruption, perpetrators of corruption and their accessories shall be afforded reasonable protection, compensation and assistance by the Government upon ascertainment by the (Prevention and Combating of Corruption) Bureau (PCCB) of the magnitude of the victimisation, injury or harm.”
The respective section describes “victimisation” as meaning any act causing injury, damage or loss, translating into intimidation, harassment, discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to one’s employment, or amounting to threats of reprisals.
PCCB wields immense legal powers which, fully invoked, would make a world of difference in the war on corruption in Tanzania – and the bureau has full liberty to arrest, if not forestall, corruption in the country’s public, parastatal and private sectors.
The bureau knows that the country’s laws encourage it to collaborate with members of the public as well as an array of national and international agencies in championing the cause for the eradication of corruption.
An interesting aspect of the crusade is that not only does PCCB screen or sweep through the sectors mentioned for detection of corruption but it is also supposed to advise them on ways and means of enhancing performance by keeping the crime in check, and what institution would not want such a wonderful service?
An obvious lesson to be learnt from this scenario is that corruption would be much easier to kick out of society were people to stop being accomplices to the crime through fear or indifference.
It can be done for, surely, it would be foolhardy for anyone to believe that corrupt elements have enough money and power to buy or intimidate the government - and the people.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN