Editorial
A good step, but just
Anti-graft body must be a tangible reality now
Together with prominent members of civil society, this paper had raised a question about the government's retaining power, under an existing law, to withdraw graft cases, even at the trial stages, which would militate against the principle of independence of the proposed anti-corruption commission. Thus, we are definitely heartened to learn that the government has decided to amend the relevant criminal law (under which graft cases will be prosecuted) so as to divest the government of its power to withdraw such cases. This will help allay concerns about state officials and functionaries being provided with any immunity by the government to corruption proceedings. So, it is a step forward. While it is good to see the government trying to clear the deck for the formation and functioning of the anti-graft body, one would have hoped that the impetus were not all donor-driven but had sprung from within the government itself. Indeed, if the government truly wishes for the anti-corruption commission to operate independently and effectively then it must take the lead in the process. This means, among other things, delegating financial authority to the commission to ensure its full autonomy and ability to function. More importantly still, the government must show that it considers fighting corruption a top priority and that the work of the commission is important for governance, national image, economy and investment. The bill to constitute the commission was passed in February, but the search committee to select a six-member panel for the President of the Republic to choose three amongst them to form the anti-graft body came into being only on May 9 proximate to the BDF meet. Ten days have passed by and yet there is no clue when its first meeting will be held. Could we have a specific time-frame for the much-awaited mutation from the rhetoric to the tangible taking place?
|
|
