Lying log eyed hypocrites

The ethic of reciprocity, or the golden rule demands that you should do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.

Those with logs in their eyes must first conduct introspection and truly find themselves worthy before they attempt to remove specs from other people’s eyes.

You hypocrite, the Bible says, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

This is not idle advice.

Very often those who present themselves as paragons of virtue are but empty noisy vessels who will weave and ensnare others into webs of lies in the hope of  gaining mileage and emerging as chivalrous crusaders of virtue.

This is called hypocrisy and indeed hypocrisy is a sin.

We have said before and will never tire in repeating that these by elections being induced by the Patriotic Front are corrupt. They are an abuse of public resources for the benefit of very narrow partisan interests.

Our position has been fortified by  the very careless and totally bewildering statement by PF Secretary General Wynter Kabimba who has opined that there is no morality in politics. We beg to differ. Morality demands that the ruling party must abide by the social contract it has with the people.

Among the tenets is the proper and scrupulous stewardship of resources. Therefore to spend public resources in order to increase numbers in Parliament  is an abuse- corruption.

It is well known that elections are not moral contests because incumbency accords the ruling party  total advantage as it has resources including the State President participating at colossal sums in attending campaigns and rallies. Ordinarily this disadvantages the opposition and must qualify as a form of corruption.

However this is allowed because election are by their very nature a form of popularity contest. That is why the rules are relaxed and infringements do not automatically amount to criminal offences.

It is in this context that the lawmakers have provided a discretionary allowance for a Judge in an election petition to determine if an offence was so heinous as to amount to a criminal offence in which case appropriate action should be taken.

In other words the presiding judge must make a decision over competing wrongs.

Judge Cullinan in his ruling in the case of Paul John Firmino Lusaka v John Cheelo (1979) Z.R. 214 (HC) stated very clearly   the provision was discretionary”…and  in a proper case the High Court, in making its report, may decline to state the name of a person found to have committed a corrupt or illegal act.”

The  Judge in his ruling declined to name the “corrupt” candidate, “ The corrupt practice in question involving the small sum of K4, was I consider of a trivial, limited and unimportant character. The recipient of the K4 was in no way induced to act thereon and even acted against the respondent’s interest. There is no evidence that even one vote was corrupted thereby. In all the circumstance I consider this a proper case for the exercise of the court’s discretion in favor of the respondent.”

It is a lie to suggest therefore that every nullified seat on account of corruption or illegality incurs the automatic wrath of criminal sanction meriting a report.

It is such lies that mislead the people and cause confusion. It should not be a sin because  one side rather than the other has lost. It should be a sin because it offends morality and by elections which consume Billions of Tax payers money for political ends is corruption most vile.