Perhaps the reason that the NBC scandal' is important to us be exactly the opposite of what we are making out. A whiff of murkiness pervades, true, and things are not made easier by those handling the issue. Those who question the wisdom of a First Lady-sponsored-NGO getting loans from an insolvent bank are still owed an explanation. It is not so much because one believes the mentioned NGO used influences to get the loan, fully knowing that the bank was soon to fold, but rather, it is worth noting, a loans to the NGO was inevitable. A business with a First Lady is an opportunity no bank can be expected to turn away. If at all there is a person or organisation that a bank would want to curry favours with, then one of such persons would be the First Lady. This, perhaps, is the missing link in the government's response to charges levelled against it stemming from the NBC's loan to the NGO.
Many critics emphasise the conflict of interests between the need for transparency and high-powered organisations (persons) getting loans. There has been, so far, no findings that the loan to the NGO was extended in doubtful ways. The mere fact that a loan was given constitutes a crime, shoots off the mark. (A sweetheart deal, probably). There is no crime in a First-Lady-sponsored-organisation getting loans and, thus, the implication that a malpractice was committed simply because a loan was given - in borrowed metres - is a dance in the dark with a drunk. (You don't come anywhere). There is no law of the country barring First Ladies taking loans.
There are moral arguments, however, for first ladies to desist taking loans. The nature of their office exert undue pressure to institutions doing business with them, and historically first ladies have been known to exercise that influence for their own welfare. In this fashion, the parliament, media ('tanzanet' included), have every right to question whether proper channels were followed to get the loan, bearing in mind the implicit influence such a high-profile customer can exert.
Was a crime committed? Furthermore, what use was the monies put to? All pointers are that the loan did not go into lining up a private person's pockets, but directly to the NGO. (This too doesn't mean that there was no foul play. (Intricacies of financial transactions is a subject to consider). But since there is a calm about the work of the NGO, one is tempted to assume that the organisation is doing good work, or else, the missions of the NGO should have been put to question. Nor are doubts expressed against the NGO's mission, namely empowerment of women and eradication of poverty, thus one has but fortitude for the organisation. And if it takes a high-profile personality to fight poverty, I don't see why the First Lady, who is also a citizen, should not be involved.
Analogies with Mama Maria Nyerere are also misleading. The projected higher values of uninvolvement in public life by Mama Nyerere were noble. But Anna Mkapa is not Maria Nyerere and time compounds the differences in approach of the two ladies in that what was correct for the 1970s isn't necessarily so for the 1990s. Both personalities - private or public - are matters for conjectures but time already has made its verdict: the 1990s require of first ladies to step out of ceremonial cocoons and play more active roles for the betterment of society; a role magnified by a natural provision that wealthy personalities (and banks) want to hobnob with power, and a first lady is closest to it. That is why it was important in the late eighties for the Chavdas and Karimjees to pay millions for silly presidential portraits; if a cat caught mice it didn't matter which colour it was, was the dictum.
Nonetheless, the First Lady must be aware that her dealings with such persons and institutions are subject to more scrutiny due to her proximity to power. The philanthropists of the day may very well have other motives which is, albeit not in all cases, the nature of business. (It is not for the love of his neighbours the butcher sells meat to them). The public has a justified reason to question transactions made by its leaders and their spouses. For after the nobility of Maria Nyerere there was that nest of spite in 1985/95 where everything went: Chavda got his pound of flesh, rainmakers got their tax breaks and someone a bureau de change. Negative vibrations. That is why people are up in arms now. They (the people) have been here before.
The NGO has to come out clean and set the record straight because stonewalling on this issue only reinforces doubts and rumours. Unfortunately, some parts of the machinery are still in knee-jerk reaction, and information is parcelled out according to whims of a spokesperson who, obviously, has nothing to lose, and actually gain by creating a storm and be the centres of; it increases their stature, but does harm to the cause.
Aware of these reactions, a nod to the old ways, where disagreement is a sign of aggression, there is a risk of stopping to do the good thing. The NBC 'scandal' should then serve as a reminder to the public figures that openness has taken hold although there are still remnants of previous eras within the administration keen on interpreting inquiry according to whether it enhances or diminishes a position. The result of which are often to be observed as amateurish attempts at cover up even when there is nothing to cover up.
Amazingly, in the space of two weeks the government has botched apparently harmless issues in this zeal to discern aggression. From Reverend Mtikila to NBC, all statements coming out are imbued with unparalleled capacity to confuse, and there is a chasm between rhetoric and fact (Mrema a nut case?). One fact that should have been made public right away was the nature of the loan - made to a Holding Company and not Mrs Mkapa; the next being the procedures followed to grant that loan. The Prime Minister has unwittingly become an arbiter of a non-existent conflict and aware of the PM's own NPF loan, no wonder a the visceral reaction.
These events accentuated the sense that there is a cover-up and went on to convey an impression of an embattled government defending deleterious positions. If there was a person to gain from Reverend Mtikila's detention it is Reverend Mtikila the martyr. (Zero-sum). By this time tomorrow you are facing Lansane and the janissars of Amnesty, "Tanzania Breaches Human Rights". Bad for investment, bad for economy and the worst hit would be pedlars of trinkets - Machinga. Enter saviour, apocalyptic Augustine - he of a skullcap and sandals, wandering the deserts: "I am the inheritor of the Father's baton. I am Joshua for his Moses". (Zero-zero). Why then, in the Name of the Most High, detain the buffoon?
Ironically, its is the current leadership that has made it possible to see through transactions made for or by public figures. A crucial aspect of what has made successful this debate is the way the government initially dealt with the issue, up front, through the Finance Minister's speech to parliament. That is why we - all of us - need all details on the table. That is why we need the contribution of the NGO. May the force be with the First Lady.