The Corruption Debate: Perhaps I am just a dreamer!

Yet again, I am drawn to poke my nose into the corruption debate in this country. This time it is invoked by a comment from a Donor country, an anonymous source sent me recently, with respect to the raging debate on the so-called removed "abuse of office" clause.

The comment reads:

"The legal environment has been largely strengthened with a new Anti Corruption Act passed in 2010. There remain concerns on the removal of an illicit enrichment clause in the new Act. However, the ACC is confident that the provisions of the new Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime ACT provide a good legal basis tackle illicit wealth, and is based on the UK model."

I guess with a change of government, whosoever this Donor is, they can not openly reiterate their position. 

But I will reiterate mine. And not from "a broken mirror purview", but from a section in the new law, that is Anti-Corruption Act No. 38 of 2010, that I just stumbled on recently. (Oh! Its being reviewed again!)
 

Section 7. Instructions by Commission, reads in part,
(1) The Commission may instruct a public body on practices and procedures that are necessary to prevent, reduce or eliminate the occurrence of corrupt practices.
(2) A public body shall, not later than ninety days from the receipt of the instructions from the Commission pursuant to subsection (1), effect the necessary changes in its practices and procedures.
(5) The head of a public body which fails to comply with the instructions of the Commission commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand penalty units or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or to both.
(6) In addition to the penalty prescribed in subsection (5), the head of the public body which fails to comply with the instructions of the Commission shall be subject to disciplinary action including dismissal from office by the relevant authority.

I then went into the archives to the old law, ACC Act No. 46 of 1996. The equivalent section in the  reads:
Reports and recommendation by Commission
10. (1) The Commission may depending on the findings made, make such recommendation as it considers necessary to the appropriate authority.
(2) The appropriate authority shall, within thirty days from the date of such recommendation make a report to the Commission, on any action taken by such authority.

 
With the debate still ranging on, I could not help but wonder how Section 7 of the now being reviewed law passed in Parliament. 

The question that begs answering is, why was/is this Section which provides so much power to the ACC not even in the debate on the so-called "abuse of office" clause. 

Abuse of Function is a systemic failure. Surely the ACC should be more proactive and invoke this Section as a means of curbing the scourge. A controlling officer that allows abuse of function should be requested to curb the practice, and if not, the ACC has the powers to act under this Section. 

And, how can a State and its people (not forgetting the tin-can CSOs) not have realised that this Section can curb the year-in-year out issues of un-retired imprest if some controlling officers were locked up for failing to put corrective measures in place. 

But, I guess, perhaps I am just a dreamer!