About a fortnight ago I posted a blog article arguing that immunities offered to politicians, presidents in particular, undermines good governance in Africa. I stated two main reasons: the first one was that it encourages corruption at the top, as officials know they cannot be persecuted. The second reason is that it promotes political tension, as presidents sought to cling on to power in order to maintain the immunity. If this fails, the presidents imposes leaders on the people.
I gave the examples of Bakili Muluzi in Malawi, Fredrick Chiluba in Zambia and Daniel arap Moi in Kenya. Both Muluzi and Chiluba failed to run for unconstitutional third terms in their respective countries and later on forced their preferred candidates on the people; Bingu wa Mutharika and the late Levy Mwanawasa (RIP).
These are historical lessons that must be heeded in order to improve the way things are set and to avoid repeating the same mistakes again. Unfortunately this is not the case, at least in my loved, Malawi.
According to the Daily Times report, the country's revenue body, Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) has announced that with effect from 3rd July 2009, incumbent president, his deputy, all the retired presidents and their deputies will be tax exempted on things that are for 'personal use'.
I detest this provision. Knowing the greed and self-centeredness of African leaders, this provision will only bring controversies and corruption. What constitutes to 'personal use'? would Muluzi's 100 vehicles he imported in 2004 fall in this category?
Sure, the vehicles were used by Muluzi's Party, United Democratic Front (UDF), but does the provision stop someone from sharing their 'personal' stuff? In Africa we leave communal life, more or less. We share 'personal' things like cooking utensils, bicycles, etc... Will these imported things, which are meant for 'personal use' not be available for share? What if ex-president buys a car, a shirt, or a boxer-short, uses it for a year and then feels that they have had enough of it; will they be allowed to give it to their uncles, unties, nieces, nephews or their village chief?
Who will be policing the maneuvers of the 'personal use' items? Maybe that will be the only positive thing about the whole thing, as that would get someone employed?
In all fairness to all those who will benefit from this provision, I think this is just another reason why ex-presidents will be spending more time in courts trying to clarify how they interpreted the 'personal use' of their property. It is a shame that suspects spend years in Malawi's jails without trial when our policy makers are happy to introduce more and more legislation that will surely get the courts congested even more.