MACC complaints panel should probe lawyers’ harassment claim

 

From Walter Sandosam

The MACC Act 2009 provides for the establishment of five oversight bodies to ensure that the commission has an inbuilt “check and balance” mechanism to keep its officers within defined authority limits in executing their duties in combating corruption.

Of specific interest, involving complaints lodged against the MACC or its officers, is Section 15 of the said Act in relation to the constitution of a complaints committee.

At the onset in 2009, this committee was chaired by a retired senior High Court judge, joined by three others, to ensure both competency and legitimacy in executing its duties. The said committee is still in existence as stipulated in the Act but with an enlarged cohort of new members which now numbers five.

Recent events involving the MACC are disturbing as it affects both the reputation and credibility of the commission on its integrity, especially in relation to allegations of abuse of power.

It is more concerning as it involves lawyers whom one would expect to have a better understanding of the law than the layman, namely on fundamental rights and liberties of the individual.

An NGO highlighted the issue while the Bar Council president reminded that enforcement bodies cannot undermine legal professional privilege and the right to legal representation.

The MACC chief commissioner has come out to deny the allegations and has, in turn, accused them of defamation.

Defamation, especially by lawyers, is extremely serious, and the MACC should take immediate steps to institute legal action to maintain its credibility.

There is no point quoting Section 31 of the MACC Act, which is Greek to the layman and best left to lawyers.

Is this a storm in a teacup or is there more than meets the eye?

If memory serves me right, during my tenure on one of the oversight committees, the use of recordings was initiated to counter insinuations of unethical practices during interviews and accusations of high handedness on the part of certain officers in discharging their functions. These will shed light.

Many assertions have been made by both parties and the truth is at stake. Surely both cannot be correct or conversely both incorrect on the facts. This is illogical. The public has a right to know.

This is a case which should be investigated by an independent party, and who better than the committee constituted pursuant to the MACC Act 2009 to specifically address situations of this nature. It is no point arguing this by issuing, in certain instances, self-serving statements.

The complaints committee will be failing in its duty if it does not act speedily and take action accordingly.

It would be equally highly disturbing as it goes against the core expectations in the Act to protect the interests of the general public with regard to the actions of the MACC.

If the lawyers had overstepped their authority and, in the process, defamed an enforcement agency then the full force of the law should come down on them.

Alternatively, the converse will be true if the findings determine otherwise.

No stone should be left unturned in getting to the root of the issue. Any compromise will make a mockery of the MACC Act, specifically Section 15 and the pursuant appointments. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a former MACC oversight panel member and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.