Graft buster doesn’t need commissioners to forward cases to DPP for prosecution
What you need to know:
- The CIC advisory is suspicious.
- It would be encouraging to know that in the war against corruption, we are all on the same side.
The Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution recently published an advisory opinion to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) cannot receive files or act on files forwarded by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission while its commissioners are suspended or under investigation.
In other words, the CIC wants the war on corruption halted until the commissioners are reinstated or new ones installed.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is a Chapter Six institution that enforces the requirements on leadership and integrity in public office.
Article 79 specifically enjoins Parliament to enact legislation to establish the EACC and directs that the commission shall have the status and powers of a commission under Chapter 15, which stipulates that it shall be a body corporate that is capable of suing and being sued.
The CIC suggested that EACC is only duly constituted if the commissioners are in situ, yet Article 250 indicates that a member of a commission may serve on a part-time basis.
Indeed, the legislation distinguishes the role of commissioners from that of the commission. The commission shall investigate and make recommendations to the DPP on matters related to corruption, among other functions.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act restricts the role of commissioners to the in-house mandates of policy formulation, provision of strategic direction to the commission, establishing and maintaining strategic linkages, and dealing with allegations of misconduct and corruption by commission staff. It is mandated to meet at least once every quarter.
Although Section 4 defines the commission as comprising the chairman and two other members, the operational hub of the EACC is the secretary, who is the chief executive and accounting officer.
The secretary is responsible for carrying out the decisions of the commission, day-to-day administration, supervision of the commission’s employees, and the performance of any other duties assigned by the commission.
SELECTIVE REASONING
The CIC exercised selective reasoning in its advisory, placing unnecessary emphasis on Section 4 and paying no heed to Chapter 15. An entity that possesses perpetual succession cannot die.
It cannot be disabled by incapacities related to the individuals serving it. It operates in its own name, not that of its officials. In recognition of this basic legal reality, Paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule of the EACC Act states that “no proceedings of the commission shall be invalidated by reason only of a vacancy among the members thereof”.
So, why would the CIC go out on a limb? Why try to railroad the DPP with a tailor-made advisory calculated to hamstring corruption-related prosecution? Why did the CIC not consider all possible elements? The advisory pre-empted independent consideration by the DPP or even the EACC. What conceivable public interest is served by this advisory?
By law and best practice, all cases of conflict of interest must be disclosed by the affected persons. Chapter Six requires public officers to be honest and impartial in decision-making. They are enjoined to ensure that their decisions are not influenced by improper motives such as nepotism, favouritism, or corrupt practices. They are expected to be guided by the spirit of selfless service based solely on the public interest and demonstrated through honesty in the execution of public duties.
The CIC advisory is suspicious. It does not pass muster and is devoid of rigorous and conscientious reasoning, which upholds the public interest in the war on corruption. It is suspicious that the CIC tries to restrain the DPP from performing his duties.
A few weeks ago, a number of public figures were required to step aside to allow investigation into allegations of corruption. Some of these officials are related to some officers of the CIC. One would expect that before the CIC made any pronouncements on the matter, this material disclosure should have been made as the conflict of interests is indisputable.
It would be encouraging to know that in the war against corruption, we are all on the same side. It raises unnecessary concern when the keepers of integrity appear to inexplicably change sides.
The writer is a presidential speechwriter. [email protected].
