Financial Intelligence centre, NGOs agree to name and shame suspects

Financial Intelligence centre, NGOs agree to name and shame suspects


Financial Intelligence Centre Director General, Mary Chirwa-Tshuma on Friday met some civil society members seeking public support.

She informed them that there were “strong forces” fighting her and engineering her alleged dismissal, or disbanding of the Centre, for making findings of her work public.

She also reportedly released investigation files for civil society to hold press conferences to help them “name and shame” those she feels have committed serious offences.

And a senior member involved in what they call #42×42 campaign, revealed that a combined civil society will on Monday hold a press conference to name and shame those cited but not named in the 2017 Trends Report.

He said that they were pleased that a government agency and not Chishimba Kambwili, had released information suitable for their anti-corruption crusade.

And Tshuma is reported to have said that since she submits her reports and findings to the Board, the “leak” of investigations files she has given members of civil society “can be attributed the Board.”
But an inside complained that Tshuma, instead of submiting her finding to law enforcement agencies as required by the Financial Intelligence Act of 2016, has instead published the 2017 Trends Report through a press conference and has placed it on the Centre’s FIC website.

The Financial Intelligence Act( Financial Intelligence Centre No. 46 of 2010 and as amended in Act no.4 of 2016) mandates the FIC Director General to treat information with confidentiality and submit such information to what the law defines as competent authorities.

But an inside has accused Tshuma of taking a publicity and populist path by giving findings of her investigation to the public gallery.

According to the FI Act, since the information and consequent findings is gathered using third-party sources, the FIC is directed to submitt such findings to the Law Enforcement Agencies for further verification and possible prosecution.

But Chirwa-Tshuma says she had sought legal opinion on the matter and contends that Act No.4 of 2016 section 3(e), (i) and section 5 (h) and (j) empowers her to make the findings public only if she protects the identity of named persons or entities.

Share this post