THE AFC MAY HAVE TO FIND A NEW CHAIR

August 10, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

You do not offer your resignation; you tender it.  The persons to whom a resignation is tendered may opt to accept it or reject it, but once tendered it is for the person tendering the resignation to determine whether they wish to have it withdrawn.

The fact that a letter of resignation is refused by the person to whom it is directed does not mean it is not effective. The only way for a resignation to be nullified is for it to be withdrawn. That annulment is the sole prerogative of the person tendering the resignation.

When you resign that is it. It constitutes a voluntary end of your tenure, unless of course the resignation is withdrawn.

A decision to withdraw a resignation that is tendered may be influenced by the fact that the person or persons to whom it is directed refuse(s) to accept it or asks that the decision be reconsidered. But once a resignation is not withdrawn, then tenure automatically ceases.

This past week, it was reported in the media that the Chairman of the Alliance For Change (AFC) is the Company Secretary of a company that is involved in the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project.  Judging from the contents of the public statement that was issued by the Chairman of the Alliance For Change, this disclosure was viewed as an attempt to sully the name of the AFC. The Chairman decided to “offer” his resignation.

But the resignation “offer” may have been influenced also by a reaction from the leader of the AFC who disclosed that while he knew of the Chairman’s association with the company concerned, he did not know that it was in the capacity of Company Secretary.

This comment from the leader of the AFC placed the Chairman in an untenable position, because on the one hand he had asserted that his party was aware of his dealings with the company and that he had acted professionally and ethically by withdrawing from any party discussion on the matter.

However, on the other hand, his leader was now implying that the full extent of the involvement was not known. This therefore placed the Chairman in a difficult position and could have influenced the decision to indicate the offer of resignation.

Whichever way you look at it, the Chairman did the right thing. He has acted with integrity by making an offer to resign and has done the right thing either to avoid any adverse effect on his party or because of the statement made by his leader. The right approach was taken and that is something good that can be taken from this whole incident.

This column has before mentioned the possible conflicts of interest that could arise as a result of the professional obligations of politicians.

Regardless of the fact that the Chairman had recused himself from discussion within the AFC on matters concerning the company concerned, the position of Chairman is a highly influential one and therefore there are bound to be problems if important political decisions have to be made by a party about an entity with which one of its senior leaders has a professional association.

The AFC has in its response to this issue, pointed out that the professional relationship existed prior to the Chairman joining the party.  This, of course, does not excuse anyone from contemplating the implications of their professional relationships for their leadership within a political party or vice versa. When someone opts to enter politics, he or she must consider the ramifications of this decision on his or her business and professional obligations, and vice versa.

But in this instance, it would have been difficult for the Chairman to have predicted that his role as company secretary would have presented the sort of problems that it now presents. But sometimes the developments that trigger the controversies can never be predicted. After all, who would have predicted that the AFC would have ended up holding the balance of power in the National Assembly?

Had the PPP won a majority – some are saying they did – this problem would never have arisen, because the government would not have needed opposition support for the passage of Bills to facilitate the hydroelectric plant.

What is important is that when a problem arises, the matter is dealt with integrity and ethically, and one must say that this is what has happened in this instance. It may now mean that the AFC will have to find a new Chairman or the company a new Company Secretary.