Dear editor,

Two weeks ago the Ombudsman, Tito Ruteremara, asked the Senate to consider banning political parties that failed to declare their wealth (The New Times, April 4).

The parties  include: Parti Democrate ideale [PDI], Union Democratique du People Rwandais [PSR], Parti Socialiste Rwandais [PSR] and Parti Pourla Progress et la Concorde [PPC].

What the story did not reveal is whether the parties could still be given more time to declare or they had failed to beat the deadline.

I believe there must be a time frame within which to make the declaration. And if they failed to beat the deadline, in good spirit they may be given time to explain.

Augustin Habimana, the Director of Translation, Documentation and Communication in Parliament has since explained that "the Senate can neither legally ban any political organisation, nor prevent any political party from participating in general elections,” (The New Times, April 12).

According to him such powers are vested in the High Court of Justice. However, this should not invalidate Ombudsman’s request. In any case the lawmakers should empower the ombudsman the more. Slapping a ban on errant parties as requested by the Ombudsman would help in a number of ways.

In Uganda, a year or so ago, when one Member of Parliament Mr. Ken Lukyamuzi, President of the Conservative Party [CP], then representing Lubaga South failed to declare his wealth to the inspector General of government [IGG] in the pretext that he had no wealth to declare, he was barred from vying for the next parliamentary election. Several pleas including seeking the intervention of the Speaker of Parliament yielded nothing.

In another edition of The New Times April 7, the leaders of the concerned parties feigned ignorance of the practice which started four years ago. But this is not reason enough to refrain the lawmakers from acting on his request considering that ignorance of the law is no defense.

The lawmakers should make an enabling law to simplify the work of the IGG. Failure to enforce any punitive action on such parties and other individual members who failed to declare their wealth would undermine the office of the ombudsman.

It may even legitimatize the practice of non-conformity with the law. Even those who fulfilled the requirement will wonder why they complied or why they should be doing so after all. Do such leaders imagine what would happen if all others emulated them and failed to declare their wealth?

Failure to act may open avenues for flouting the leadership code by many a leader. A more disastrous effect is that it would be frustrating government efforts in stemming corruption. By acting on the party leaders, it would strengthen the mandate of the office of the IGG.

Let the Ombudsman also follow up on the workers of Rwanda Revenue Authority and others who failed to declare their wealth. But especially RRA staff should be quick to declare their wealth, because the public views them as working at the source of wealth thereby perceiving them as vulnerable to corruption.

In RRA, out of 312 people, 38 of them did not declare their wealth. Being public servants the public is entitled to ask many questions about how much wealth they have acquired as public servants. I guess this is why even salaries of public servants are a public secret.

Kanombe