In the aftermath of the euphoria that followed the stripping of Chiluba’s Presidential immunity so that he and his senior colleagues could face prosecution for the alleged corrupt practices and to fight corruption in general, the Government of Zambia set up legal and institutional mechanisms. This book attempts to provide an analysis of the various legal and institutional mechanisms for fighting this scourge. It is an authoritative work on the subject as it attempts to clarify the legal and institutional framework of each of the mechanisms set up by the State to fight corruption. For example, it is not easily ascertainable as to the delineation of responsibilities between the Anti-Corruption Commission, which is an older institutional mechanism, and the Task Force on Corruption, which was set up in the aftermath of the Chiluba debacle. What was the rationale for establishing another institutional mechanism? How were the two institutions to function? Was this new nomenclature necessary or would it have been better to strengthen the already existing Anti-Corruption Commission? Was there a clear delineation of responsibilities? Which agency has authority over the other? The book attempts to clarify a number of legal lacunae, including the definitional problems associated with the terms corruption and good governance, as well as the confusing role of the Task Force on Corruption. The book explains salient points such as the composition of the Anti-Corruption Commission and its functions in the fight against corruption. The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the fight of corruption is highlighted. The book also defines the role played by the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the special powers he yields to investigate where there has been an allegation of corruption made.
The book contains two important messages on the fight against corruption. The first point is that regardless of the legal and institutional mechanisms set up, in the absence of a political will, the fight against corruption can never be won. The second point the author makes is that there needs to be a shifting of the burden of proof from the State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to the person accused of engaging in corruption. This shift of the burden of proof would be placed on the accused person to show, on the basis of his or her income, how the extra wealth was acquired.