The publication of performance results for the six aspiring candidates for the post of Prosecutor General has led to a debate in the legal fraternity, with some saying publication is a sign of transparency, while others are of the view that publication attracts unnecessary controversy.
The 2013 constitution ushered in a new dispensation of transparency and accountability, and it is this spirit that some advocates believe must be promoted by publishing the actual marks of the results of the interviews in public.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu said publication of the marks will increase public confidence and promote intellectual integrity for such important offices.
Advocate Silvestor Hashiti is of the view that the marks must remain a preserve of the executive.
Advocate Keith Kachambwa believes publication of marks may cause controversy as the one with top marks may not be up to the expectations of the executive.
A match report can only be conclusive if the actual score line is reported, argued Advocate Tawanda Zhwarara.
His view is supported by Advocate Kerry Hutchings who supported the move to promote constitutionalism by revealing the marks.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Justice Rita Makarau said it is not the intention of the commission to publish actual marks, adding that it has not been the practice.