40 MPs should not get special treatment

IS there really a difference between MPs accused of fraud and the man-in-the-street who faces similar charges? Clearly there is in the eyes of the National Prosecuting Authority, that is treating MPs involved in the Travelgate scam as if they were visiting dignitaries rather than public representatives who are alleged to have abused their privileges and defrauded Parliament.

One is filled with a sense of outrage that people placed in a position of trust, mandated by the electorate to pass laws on their behalf, often the authors of pious speeches on moral regeneration and the need to deal harshly with criminals – and paid handsomely to boot – should be treated with kid gloves.

Rather than being brought to court publicly to face charges of fraud, the Scorpions and lawyers for the 40 MPs have been locked behind closed doors working out some kind of arrangement, be it an agreement to give evidence for the State or a plea bargain.

Indeed, everything appears to have been done to soften the ignominy of being caught and charged, unlike lesser mortals accused of filching from the State who are often arrested or have their ill-gotten gains seized in the full glare of television.

What appears to have been lost sight of is the fact that the 40 face serious charges, some involving more than R200 000, crimes that, given the betrayal of the position of trust involved, might well warrant a jail sentence.

Yet not only are they being afforded special treatment but there has not even been a hint from the ruling party that such people might not be fit to hold public office, which clearly they are not.

What is becoming increasingly apparent is that the commitment to root out corruption remains tepid at best. It is impossible to draw any other conclusion given the circumspect manner in which those involved in the Travelgate scandal have been dealt with.

And that raises another question: would the 40 have even faced charges if the scandal had not been made public?

---

SAPS must bar the stressed

FEW would dispute that being a policeman is a stressful job. The ability to cope, one would have thought , is an essential qualification. Yet we seem to have policemen on extended stress leave and, quite rightly, authorities in the service are getting impatient about it.

Strength of character and the ability to think of the public they are there to help and protect are surely key elements of a police officer’s job.

Police are the keepers of the peace and the guardians of the law and they have to act swiftly and with confidence when that peace is disturbed or the law broken. And they are trained to deal with the culprits, arresting and charging them when necessary, but also calmly restoring order when matters get out of hand.

Given the history of the difficulties many members of the police had to face in turbulent times, cases of post-traumatic stress have been understandable. But that should not provide an everlasting billet. We’re over the stress now. Calling a policeman back to his job after three years of being booked off for this vexed and indefinable ailment, seems reasonable enough. But if he can’t stand the heat of resuming his career – as seems to be the case with a Humewood policeman whose case we reported this week – he should be retired from the kitchen.

He should certainly not be left on sick leave for three years.