The necessity of suspending public officers facing corruption charges: Supporting Professor Munyonzwe Hamalengwa’s argument
By Danny Simumba: Monday, February 17, 2025
IN the February 16, 2025, the Mast newspaper’s article entitled: “A public officer facing corruption charges must generally be suspended.” Professor Munyonzwe Hamalengwa raises an important legal and ethical argument regarding the suspension of public officers, particularly Ministers, who are under investigation for corruption. Hamalengwa’s argument is centered on Section 47 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act No. 3 of 2012. He effectively challenges certain assertions that the ACC Act does not apply to Ministers due to their position as defined in the Zambian Constitution, as amended by Act No. 2 of 2016. This author seeks to reinforce Hamalengwa’s submission and asserts that such claims from some quarters of society were based on a narrow and isolated reading of the Constitution, and undermine the broader international legal commitments that Zambia has made to fight corruption.
Zambia, as a member of the international community, is a signatory to several major anti-corruption conventions and protocols, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol Against Corruption. These international instruments require domestic legal systems to have comprehensive frameworks to combat corruption and ensure that public office holders are held accountable for their actions. The Anti-Corruption Commission Act No. 3 of 2012 domesticates these international instruments to form part of the national laws.
These international legal frameworks contain specific provisions that mandate the suspension or removal of public officers, including Ministers, when they are under investigation for corruption. These instruments encourage signatory countries to adopt comprehensive anti-corruption measures in their domestic legal systems, emphasizing accountability and transparency in public office. Specific Provisions from International Laws:
- United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
Article 30(1) of UNCAC requires that States Parties take appropriate measures to ensure that public officials are held accountable for their actions, including through mechanisms that allow for the suspension or removal of officials under investigation for corruption. It obligates countries to ensure that appropriate disciplinary or legal measures are in place to address misconduct by public officers.
The UNCAC also encourages the establishment of independent bodies to investigate corruption and to ensure that the law is applied to all, regardless of rank or office.
- African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC)
Article 4(1)(b) of the AUCPCC requires States Parties to take measures to promote transparency in the public sector and combat corruption. While it does not explicitly mandate suspension, the provision stresses the need for effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms to ensure accountability.
Article 6 calls for measures that allow for the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those involved in corrupt practices, which could logically include suspension pending investigation.
- Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol Against Corruption
Article 5 of the SADC Protocol obliges States Parties to adopt and implement measures that ensure the accountability of public officials, including promoting ethical behavior and ensuring public officials are investigated and prosecuted for corruption. Although it does not explicitly require suspension, it calls for effective institutional frameworks to combat corruption.
The overall Impact of these international conventions emphasize the need for domestic legal systems to prevent corruption by ensuring that public officers are accountable. Although the international texts might not always explicitly mandate suspension during an investigation, they create a legal framework that encourages countries to adopt such measures. The suspension of public officers, including Ministers, while under investigation is a necessary action to maintain public trust and ensure that corruption does not go unchecked, aligning with the broader principles of transparency, accountability, and justice outlined in these international instruments.
The argument, therefore, that Section 47 of the ACC Act may not apply to Ministers contradicts the purpose of domestication of these international agreements; it is an invalid position and require urgent correction. The very purpose of domesticating international conventions is to ensure that national laws align with the broader global fight against corruption. Exempting Ministers from being suspended during corruption investigations would send the wrong message and weaken Zambia’s commitment to these vital anti-corruption frameworks. It would suggest that political figures are immune to accountability, which directly undermines the principles of transparency, justice, and accountability that international conventions like UNCAC demand.
One of the key aspects of this author’s argument is the interpretation of the Zambian Constitution, specifically Articles 8 and 9, which outline national values and principles of governance, such as morality, ethics, accountability and transparency. These constitutional provisions, alongside other stipulations in the Constitution, should guide the application of laws like the Section 47 of the ACC Act. A strict, isolated reading of Article 266, which defines Ministers as “State Officers” rather than “Public Officers,” misses the broader constitutional framework in which public service operates.
It is important to recognize that although the Constitution does not explicitly define the grounds for the removal of Ministers, it does empower the President to appoint and remove them (Article 116). This gives the President, as the appointing authority, the discretion to act in a manner that aligns with the public interest, especially when Ministers are facing serious corruption charges. There is no constitutional contradiction in suspending a Minister under investigation for corruption; rather, this suspension ensures that the integrity of public office is maintained and upholds the national values and principles of morality and ethics, transparency and accountability, which are embedded in Articles 8 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the argument that Ministers cannot be suspended as demanded by Section 47 of the ACC Act simply because they are State Officers fails to take into account the broader context of public service. The principles of public service, as outlined in Article 173 of the Constitution, apply to all public officials, including Ministers. These principles emphasize integrity, accountability, and the public interest. Ministers, as public servants, are not exempt from these values. Their actions should be subject to scrutiny, especially when facing serious allegations like corruption. The notion that Ministers should not be suspended during an investigation contradicts the Constitution’s broader goals of promoting good governance.
Across the world, suspending public officers, including Ministers, under investigation for corruption is a well-established practice that reinforces the importance of accountability in governance. International best practices clearly support the suspension of Ministers during investigations to maintain the integrity of the office and the public’s trust in the government.
In the United Kingdom, for example, the Ministerial Code outlines that Ministers should step down from their positions if they are under investigation for serious allegations. This practice ensures that the government is not seen as condoning corruption, and it preserves the credibility of the public service. In the past, high-ranking officials such as Lord Brittan and former Defense Secretary Liam Fox were suspended while under investigation, reflecting the importance of ensuring accountability.
In South Africa, the suspension of Ministers facing corruption charges is also a standard practice. One notable example is that of former Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, who was placed on suspension in 2016 while facing an investigation related to allegations of corruption. Although the charges were later dismissed, his suspension was in line with the country’s commitment to upholding the principles of transparency and accountability. This action was taken not to undermine his position but to maintain the integrity of the public office he held.
Similarly, in other jurisdictions such as Brazil and Tanzania, Ministers and senior public officials facing corruption charges have been temporarily suspended during investigations. In these cases, the suspension serves to protect the public interest and ensures that investigations are conducted without interference. These international precedents clearly illustrate the effectiveness and necessity of suspending public officers, including Ministers, during investigations into serious allegations like corruption.
Zambia’s commitment to fighting corruption and promoting good governance can only be strengthened by ensuring that Ministers facing corruption charges are suspended during investigations. By aligning national law with international best practices, Zambia sends a strong message that corruption at any level of government must not be tolerated. The suspension of Ministers under investigation is not only in line with the Constitution but also reflects Zambia’s international obligations and its dedication to the values of accountability, transparency, and integrity in public service.
Professor Hamalengwa’s argument is a call to action that must be heeded. It is critical that Zambia does not allow legal technicalities or misinterpretations of the Constitution to impede the fight against corruption. By upholding Section 47 and other provisions of the ACC Act and ensuring that Ministers facing serious allegations are suspended, Zambia will reinforce its commitment to good governance and the fight against corruption. This is not just a legal obligation but a moral and ethical imperative to ensure that the public trust in government remains unshaken.
The suspension of public officers, including Ministers, under investigation for corruption is both a necessary and effective measure. It protects the integrity of the public office, ensures accountability, and aligns Zambia with international best practices in anti-corruption governance. As such, the provisions of Section 47 of the ACC Act should be upheld, and Ministers should be suspended during corruption investigations to preserve public confidence and reinforce the values enshrined in the Constitution.
About the Author: The author is a Zambian Citizen with interest in constitutional law, political and economic issues.
