“The responsibility of an Attorney General is not only to determine what is illegal, but to recognise what is questionable”

BY SAGE

A dramatic price increase is not, in itself, proof of corruption. Prices can rise for legitimate reasons: shortages, currency movements, global shocks, or genuine cost increases. In that narrow sense, the Attorney General is correct.

But that is only half the story.

In public finance and procurement, precisely the AG’s lane, an unusually high price is a classic red flag. Not evidence of wrongdoing, but a signal that demands explanation. It should immediately trigger questions: compared to what benchmark? Who set the price? Was there competition? Were procedures followed? Who benefits?

The comparison with maize prices is therefore misleading. Market prices fluctuate based on supply and demand. Government transactions, by contrast, involve discretion, negotiation, and approval, precisely the conditions under which inflated pricing can be engineered.

So the issue is not whether a high price proves corruption. It is whether it invites scrutiny.

And here lies the deeper concern.

If a dramatic and unexplained price increase is not even recognised as a red flag, then the problem is no longer just the transaction. It is the oversight.

Because the responsibility of an Attorney General is not only to determine what is illegal, but to recognise what is questionable.

When red flags are not seen, or are explained away, :the system loses its early warning mechanism.

And in such a system, corruption begins when warning signs are ignored, not when wrongdoing is established.