Upgraded anti-corruption Investigating Directorate could suffer same fate as Scorpions

Albert Einstein, originator of the theory of relativity, is often cited as saying things he never said. One of them, popular with politicians and political commentators, is described in serious research by Sarah Pruitt as follows:

“‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’ A favourite of politicians (and pretty much everybody else), this quote has been wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin as well as Einstein, but there’s no evidence either of them said it.

“The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, an authoritative compilation of his most memorable utterances, identified the quote as a misattribution, and mentioned its use in the 1983 novel Sudden Death by Rita Mae Brown. 

“On his website, Quote Investigator, [Garson] O’Toole traced the link between insanity and repetition back to at least the 19th century, but noted its use in a Narcotics Anonymous pamphlet as well as novels (including Brown’s), TV shows and various other sources.”

Sometimes “stupidity” is substituted for “insanity” in the misquoted sentence.

In my capacity as a director of Accountability Now, I frequently advocate the establishment of a new Chapter 9 institution that, so it is contended, ought to be established with a mandate to prevent, combat, investigate and prosecute serious corruption.

I have done so in court, in the media, in Parliament and in correspondence with relevant members of the executive branch of government and with Nacac (the newly minted National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council), among others.

The purpose behind the pertinacity is to assist in creating and building the political will necessary to encourage suitable reform of the criminal justice administration in SA so that the current lack of an effective and efficient anti-corruption entity is properly addressed in lawful and constitutionally compliant fashion.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of a daily newspaper on the topic. It was given the accurate headline, “State obliged to create independent anti-corruption entity.”

In response, my namesake, Paul Kearney, a frequent commentator in the media, wrote back:

“Paul I admire your tenacity but your repetition of suddenly expecting the current ANC regime to implement the reforms you suggest is starting to sound like Einstein's definition of insanity. Only one hope; ANC out.”

I plead guilty to the accusations of tenacity and repetition; both are required to build the necessary political will that precedes suitable reform of the law. 

This approach is preferable by far to the alternative, which is to litigate in the public interest to achieve proper implementation of the binding decisions of the highest court in the land.

Litigation need only be resorted to when it becomes clear that those in positions of authority and those tasked with advising government on the topic are unable to bring themselves to acknowledge that the current system is not compliant with the law as laid down in the Glenister litigation and that proper compliance is what is required if the country is ever going to deal with the scourge of industrial-scale corruption in high places.

The advocacy of reform of the criminal justice administration to so comply is not a sudden expectation. It ought to be the expectation of everyone that the government will comply with the law as laid down by our highest court. The government was a party to the litigation brought in the name of Hugh “Bob” Glenister and as such is constitutionally bound by its orders and decisions under section 165(5) of the Constitution.

Accountability Now has been advocating the necessary reform since 2012, which is hardly sudden. In effecting the reform required, government is obliged to make “the reasonable decision of a reasonable decision-maker in the circumstances”, as the court put it. 

Reform is needed not because Accountability Now says so; it is because the court has so decided.