By Claude Phuti
The Mayor of Bulawayo, Hon Senator David Coltart, has proposed that councillors facing corruption-related allegations should excuse themselves from council functions while they clear their names and return once cleared. The proposal raises an important question, how can local authorities protect institutional integrity without undermining the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
The proposal should not be understood as automatic removal from office. Rather, it involves temporary recusal while allegations are investigated or determined. This distinction is important. Serious corruption allegations can undermine public confidence, create conflicts of interest, and damage the reputation of the entire council whose ripple effects include reducing investor confidence. At the same time, allegations alone are not proof of guilt. In Bulawayo, these debates are often complicated by concerns that corruption allegations may be exploited by political parties or central government authorities to undermine local institutions or target political opponents. Given the city’s history of marginalisation, some also argue that allegations against local leaders or opposition figures should be treated cautiously. However, accountability requires a consistent standard. Corruption should be condemned regardless of who is accused. Whether the allegations involve ruling party officials, opposition councillors, or local leaders, the same principles must apply. Properly regulated temporary recusal may therefore provide a middle ground, protecting public confidence in local government while respecting the presumption of innocence.
The strongest argument for temporary recusal is the protection of institutional integrity. Public confidence in local government depends not only on whether officials are ultimately guilty or innocent, but also on whether public institutions are seen to respond or have the necessary robust internal systems in place to respond appropriately to serious allegations. Where a councillor faces corruption allegations arising from the exercise of public office, continued participation in council affairs may undermine confidence in council decisions. For example, if a councillor is accused of manipulating a land allocation process which has often been the case across Zimbabwe’s local authorities, residents may question the legitimacy of any subsequent land-related decisions in which that councillor participates. Temporary recusal protects the institution without requiring a finding of guilt.
On this topic
At the same time, recusal can uphold rather than undermine the presumption of innocence. Allegations, arrests and even criminal charges do not establish guilt. In a highly polarised political environment, automatic removal could easily weaponized for settling political scores, as evidenced by the gross abuse of section 129(k) of the constitution which empowers political parties to recall elected officials without the consultation of electorate. Temporary recusal offers a middle ground. The councillor retains office, receives due process, and has the opportunity to clear his or her name. If the allegations are withdrawn, dismissed, or disproved, the councillor can resume official functions without having suffered the permanent consequences associated with removal from office. Moreover, the women’s quota system safeguards the electorate’s right to diverse representation in local government.
Recusal is particularly compelling where allegations create actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Consider a councillor, especially those chairing committees are accused of receiving kickbacks from a refuse collection contract. Even if no wrongdoing is ultimately proved, the public may understandably question that councillor’s participation in decisions involving waste management contracts or related procurement matters. Stepping aside from those functions protects the integrity of both the individual and the institution regarding the decision-making process and reassures residents that council business is being conducted fairly.
Temporary recusal may also help safeguard investigations. Corruption inquiries often involve access to council records, employees, contractors and financial information. A councillor who remains actively involved in the institution while under investigation may face allegations, whether justified or not, of influencing witnesses or interfering with evidence. Recusal reduces that risk and protects both the investigation and the councillor from unnecessary suspicion, further strengthening the integrity of both the individual and institution at the same time enhancing public and investor confidence.
Another important benefit is the protection of other councillors and the institution. Allegations against one or two individuals can easily create damning narratives that an entire council, or institution and even members of a certain political party are corrupt. By treating allegations as the responsibility of specific individuals rather than the institution generally, a council can demonstrate that it distinguishes between those accused of misconduct and the many elected representatives who continue to serve honestly.
Temporary recusal also allows accountability and service delivery to coexist. Council business cannot simply stop because allegations have been made against one office holder leading to arrests. Essential functions such as water provision, refuse collection, road maintenance, development approvals and licensing must continue. Where the law permits, another councillor can temporarily assume the relevant responsibilities until the matter is resolved.
Finally, temporary recusal reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust. It recognises an important distinction between the individual councillor and the office that he or she occupies. A councillor may possess a democratic mandate from voters, but the powers exercised through the office belong to the public as engraved in the constitution of Zimbabwe, from the founding values of the country in Section 3(2)(f), Section 194(1) on Public trust and Administrative standard and Section 264(2)(a) on Devolution. In appropriate cases, stepping aside from the exercise of those powers while allegations are investigated can demonstrate respect for the institution without amounting to an admission of guilt.
These arguments are particularly relevant in Bulawayo, where conversations about accountability are often complicated by fears that corruption allegations may be exploited by central government or political opponents to weaken local institutions. There is also a tendency in some quarters to minimise allegations against local leaders or opposition politicians because of concerns about political manipulation. Those concerns deserve consideration, but they should not lead to a double standard. If corruption is condemned when committed by members of ZANU-PF as the case was in Ward 1, it must also be condemned when committed by opposition politicians or local leaders. The credibility of anti-corruption efforts depends on the consistent application of principles rather than the political, ethnic or tribal identity of the accused.
Nevertheless, temporary recusal should never become a substitute for due process. There must be clear and objective criteria, credible evidence, written reasons, independent oversight and periodic review. Additionally, the process should remain transparent for public scrutiny. Most importantly, recusal must remain distinct from removal from office. If a councillor is cleared, acquitted, or the allegations are shown to be unfounded, the councillor should promptly resume his or her functions and a public statement or information in general be put out highlighting these developments to enhance public confidence. Otherwise, a measure intended to protect institutional integrity risks becoming punishment without proof of wrongdoing.
David Coltart’s proposal offers a potentially effective way of strengthening measures to corruption allegations in local government. Its principal strength is that it seeks to protect the institution without automatically condemning the individual. Temporary recusal can protect the integrity of public office, preserve the presumption of innocence, reduce conflicts of interest, protect investigations, restore public confidence, protect other councillors, maintain council operations, preserve the distinction between office and office-holder, encourage timely resolution of allegations and strengthen accountability. The most appropriate approach is therefore temporary and carefully regulated recusal rather than automatic removal. Serious and credible allegations may justify temporarily stepping aside, particularly where they relate directly to the councillor’s official functions. However, the process must include due process, independent oversight, reasonable time limits and the right to return once the councillor has been cleared. Ultimately, the office of councillor is bigger than the individual who occupies it. Councillors are temporary custodians of public authority, while local government institutions must retain the confidence of the community. Protecting those institutions while respecting the rights of accused councillors is not contradictory. Properly designed, temporary recusal can advance democracy, fairness, accountability and the rule of law simultaneously.
Leave a Reply