Robert Mugabe became President of Zimbabwe in 1980. He was then a popular hero, having fought to liberate the country from white minority rule under the Rhodesian Front.

Mugabe’s time as President has seen the ruin of the country. His government has been criticised as riddled with corruption, and with high unemployment and runaway inflation Zimbabwe is now suffering financial disaster. There have also been reports of frequent attacks on his political opponents as he seeks to cling to power, including the use of wide-spread intimidation and of torture, and he is accused of having stolen the last election.

Five weeks ago, there was a Presidential election, and a real hope that Mugabe might be ousted. Things in Zimbabwe have become so bad that it seemed possible that Mugabe would no longer be able to control the opposition to him.

Following the election, Mugabe’s rival Morgan Tsvangirai quickly claimed outright victory. He didn’t have direct access to the ballots, but as a measure to promote fairness polling stations had been required to post local results, and Tsvangirai’s MDC party said that according to these results he had won 50.3% of the vote, more than the 50% required to make him the new President.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s Zanu PF party refused to publish the results, amidst claims that they were looking for ways to rig them.

Today, finally, the official results were announced, giving Tsvangirai a win but not a large enough share of the vote to avoid a second round of voting with just him and Mugabe on the ballot paper. Whether or not Tsvangirai really won the vote outright is a mystery.

Both parties have some access to the results (ability to see), Tsvangirai’s to those posted outside the polling stations and Mugabe’s to the actual ballots cast, which makes them more credible.

Both have a clear vested interest to lie about the results in order to snatch power, however, damaging their credibility.

Although Mugabe’s reputation for rigging elections gives him the least credibility, without a neutral observer able to operate unhindered by Zanu PF it pretty much impossible for us to know what the outcome of the election really was.

The inquest into the death of Princess Diana is drawing to a close, and the coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker has been summing up to help the jury to reach a verdict. Among other things, he has advised them on the credibility of one of the witnesses at the inquest, Diana’s butler Paul Burrell.

The BBC summarised his comments about Burrell like this:

Lord Baker suggested to the jury that Mr Burrell may have given evidence while thinking that “whatever he said might have an impact on his future enterprises”. Mr Burrell worked for Diana from 1992 and described himself as “Diana’s rock” - but Lord Baker said he was “quite a porous rock” given that many of the princess’ secrets were made public. The coroner said: “I advise you to proceed with caution especially if you are left with the impression that he only told you what he wanted you to hear. “On the other hand he was close to Diana and was particularly well-placed to hear information that others were not. The fact that he has not told you the truth on some occasions does not mean you cannot accept anything he he has told you. But you should proceed with caution.”

[Source: BBC News: Diana's butler 'obviously' lying]

In other words, although Burrell, being close to Diana, has a good ability to see, his vested interest to advance his own career means that he can’t be relied on.

Cricket Umpire Darrell Hair has been under fire for charging the Pakistan team with ball-tampering in a recent test match against England. Having examined the ball, and conferred with a colleague, he deducted five runs from Pakistan’s total as a penalty. Pakistan were, at this point, well in the lead in the match, but staged a sit-in protest in the dressing room, refusing to continue play. The match was then abandoned and awarded to England.

Since all that happened, Hair has been accused of racism, of systematically favouring the opponents of Asian nations over the years. The International Cricket Council were due to hold a disciplinary hearing to examine the ball-tampering charge, and hopefully resolve the furore surrounding Hair, when they called a press-conference. In it, ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed made what the press has labelled a shocking revelation: Hair had offered to retire from umpiring in return for a secret payment of $500,000. For full transparency, they published the e-mail correspondence in which Hair made the offer.

There are two interpretations of the e-mail exchange. According to the first, Hair was feeling the pressure and offered the ICC a solution that was in both their best interests and his. If he stayed, the ICC would be stuck with an Umpire who couldn’t preside over many matches due to the allegations of bias. If he stayed, he would have to continue to face down criticism from the press and from his opponents in cricket. The game would be tarnished; his career, ruined. The $500,000 would pay up his contract, which had several years left to run, and get both parties out of difficulty.

As Malcolm Speed admitted, however, there was a much more sinister reading of events. He urged the press not to accept it. According to this reading, Hair was blackmailing the ICC, using his power to contain the emerging crisis in order to extract money from them. Some even suggested that he might have deliberately created the scandal in order to get himself a pay-off.

How credible was Speed’s claim that this more sinister view of events was mistaken, that Hair had acted honourably throughout?

Speed’s reputation, on the face of it, is solid enough. As the Chief Executive of the ICC, he certainly has high status; he is in an important position of trust. This lends credibility to his claim.

His ability to see is more limited; it’s difficult for him to tell what was going on in Hair’s head. Yes, he had access to the e-mail correspondence, but he admitted in the press conference that this could be read in either of two ways. Unless he had private correspondence or conversations with Hair in addition to the published e-mails, then his access to the evidence is the same as everyone else’s, and so he is basing his interpretation of events on background knowledge rather than clear first-hand evidence.

Speed certainly suffers from a vested interest. As someone with a great deal invested in the cricket, and whose responsiblity is to protect the sport, he has a lot to lose if the reputation of cricket is damaged. This certainly weakens his sympathic interpretation of Hair’s actions.

Speed’s level of expertise is a little difficult to assess. In this context, expertise would involve knowledge of Hair. Is Hair the type of person who would try to make money out of a potential disaster? Without better knowledge of the relationship between the two, it’s impossible to tell whether Speed possesses this expertise.

Finally, there is the issue of neutrality, which is again difficult to assess. If Speed and Hair have had a long and productive professional relationship, as may well be the case, then Speed may well have a bias towards Hair, and so a reason to defend him. If, on the other hand, they have no such rapport, or even a disliking for each other, then things may be different.

To reach an overall judgement on the credibility of Speed’s claim, then, his reputation and possible expertise must be weighed against his poor ability to see, vested interest, and possible bias.

What’s your judgement?