The Implication of Removing Section 37 from the Anti-Corrruption Commission (ACC)Act No.42 of 1996

The study's main objective is to assess whether government could be justified for having repealed the Law on abuse of office which was provided for under the abrogated Anti-Corruption Commission Act No. 42 of 1996. Before the repeal of the law in November, 2010, Governments' intentions were preceded by a lot of public debate. Most members of the public, civil society organisations and opposition political parties felt that Governments' move was not legitimate because the law which was targeted for repeal was said to have proved its efficacy in fighting corruption. Government, however, was of the view that the said law was a duplication of other already existing laws in other statutes, for instance, that it was adequately provided for under the Penal Code, Cap. 87 of the laws of Zambia. Furthermore, Government was of the view that Section 37 of the repealed Anti Corruption Commission Act No. 42 of 1996 was in contravention with the Zambia Republican Constitution. In repealing the Act, Government claimed that it was set to harmonise the anti-corruption laws with international instruments and standards.This study has reviewed that for lack of political will to fight the corruption scourge, most African governments have resorted to diluting laws which appear to be effective in the fight. This is because the laws on abuse of office make leaders to answer for their wrongs once they leave office. Most leaders can not resist the temptation of helping themselves from state coffers, hence, would do everything to unmake good laws which would haunt them.This paper concludes that Government's reasons for repealing the law on abuse of office where not justified.