Dear Editor,
It is with surprise that one reads of reaction to the structure, functioning and legal basis of the anti-corruption unit SOCU, and of reservations about SARU.
Some speak of a ‘witchhunt’ and others perhaps pretend not to know or understand Commonwealth legal precedent on the subject. The administrative intentions, procedures and justifications are, as we all are aware, not unique to our jurisdiction.
In fact, India has a complete Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. It provides for special judges and special prosecutors. Mayawattie, the former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, as well as the Tamil Nadu leader Jayalalithan were investigated under it. Interestingly, it places the onus on the government functionary to explain what it describes as “disproportionate assets”, meaning possessions and cash out of all normal relation to verifiable earnings.
The Indian Central Bureau of Investigations is empowered to visit homes and seize records and its tax department is empowered to probe and recommend prosecution also.
There is no question of the accused defiantly challenging the state to ‘prove it’ ; it suffices that a reasonable doubt arises due to a demonstrable disproportion and the legal and police authorities are obliged to act. He, she or they have to prove to the courts how they came by ten billion on a government salary. For the minor cases ‒ one thinks of traffic bribes or office work graft ‒ a short period of six months jail and fines are applied. For the five star accused, punishment could go up to five years imprisonment.
Malaysian Prime Minister Razak had to explain US$681 million in a personal bank account.
Fortunately, in our case, personal gifts of any magnitude and nature have to be declared under recent government rules.
Nigeria, another corruption riddled Commonwealth country, has in place laws and systems to combat the plague. Even state governors have been made to pay the price of their miraculous capacity to earn, or as one politician in Guyana averred, to “save” money at the demonic rate that led to fortune overnight.
Turks and Caicos politicians and Cayman Islands leaders have been prosecuted for corruption. A former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister was charged and tried and condemned. And there were others. Why is it, that with our brilliant lawyers, we appear ill prepared to have created the legal framework needed to deliver suspects to the special judges? I therefore cannot understand the polemics we see in the newspapers surrounding this issue. Who is being protected and why? The state has to continue to pursue an issue that was important to our perception of the character and proclivities of some who occupied public office and still aspire to do so. The normal response has to continue to demolish the propaganda of those challenging us to “prove it”. The defiant now have to understand that not only have public expectation of politicians changed, but the deficiencies that allowed certain forms of abuse of public trust are being remedied and reinforced by hardened rules.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
