Nalinda Indatissa
President’s Counsel
Public outrage over corruption today often finds its loudest expression on social media. Allegations are shared, names are circulated, and images of wealth are dissected in real time. While such discourse may raise awareness, it is important to recognise a fundamental limitation: social media cannot seize, freeze, or forfeit unlawfully acquired assets. That power lies exclusively within the framework of the law, exercised by duly authorised institutions such as the Police and the Bribery Commission under the Anti-Corruption law.
Modern anti-corruption legislation, reinforced by proceeds of crime provisions, has introduced a significant shift in how illicit enrichment is addressed. The law now permits action not only after a criminal conviction, but also in situations where assets are demonstrably disproportionate to lawful income and cannot be satisfactorily explained. In such cases, the focus is not confined to proving criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt; rather, it extends to examining whether the property itself has a legitimate origin.
Where a public officer or a politician is found to possess substantial wealth that is inconsistent with known sources of income, and fails to provide a credible explanation, the law can be invoked. The Police and the Bribery Commission are empowered to investigate, trace financial flows, and move court to freeze and seize assets at an early stage. This prevents the dissipation or concealment of property while inquiries are ongoing. Thereafter, through due legal process and judicial oversight, such assets may be forfeited if it is established that they are more likely than not derived from unlawful activity.
This is not merely a theoretical construct. The Bribery Commission has already exercised these powers in respect of sitting public officers, demonstrating that the law is both operational and effective when properly utilised. Importantly, the reach of these provisions is not limited to those currently in office. If applied with consistency and impartiality, they are equally capable of being used against retired officials as well as former and sitting politicians. The law draws no distinction based on status or timing; its concern is whether the wealth in question can be lawfully justified.
The contrast with social media is therefore stark. Public commentary, however forceful, cannot substitute for lawful action. Allegations made online do not freeze bank accounts, nor do they result in the recovery of illicit assets. Only structured investigations, supported by evidence and conducted within the legal framework, can achieve that result. This underscores the importance of strong institutions and the responsible exercise of statutory powers.
At the same time, the use of these powers must be guided by fairness and due process. Individuals must be given a proper opportunity to explain their assets, and courts must ensure that enforcement does not become arbitrary or selective. The strength of the law lies not only in its reach, but in its credibility.
Now that the Anti-Corruption law provides a clear pathway for non-conviction based seizure and forfeiture, the responsibility rests with law enforcement agencies to act. Where there is credible evidence of unexplained wealth, the Police and the Bribery Commission have both the authority and the duty to proceed—firmly, fairly, and without fear or favour. In doing so, they affirm a simple but essential principle: public office cannot be used as a gateway to unexplained wealth, and where such wealth exists, the law—not public opinion—will ultimately determine its fate.