[ad_1]
According to him, these leaders simply refuse to comply with established rules on good governance and protection of the national stock exchange.
"What do the government and the public expect from special prosecutors when the heads of institutions refuse or refuse to support the fight against corruption and corruption-related offenses by not rigorously enforcing them?" regulations to promote the fight against corruption and other criminal acts? crimes? Corruption and corruption-related offenses are offenses committed primarily by public officials and it is generally not expected that officials of public institutions will protect public officials suspected of having committed these offenses, even when they were charged and brought before the Court ", excerpted from his article.
Read his full article below
CHALLENGES OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN GHANA: BY MARTIN A. B.K. AMIDU, M
The biggest challenge faced by the Office of the Special Prosecutor as the organ responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption, despite all the powers conferred on it, is not the President who promised the people of Ghana to create it, but the heads of institutions who simply refuse to comply with the laws to ensure good governance and protect national finances by fighting corruption.
Institutional officials deliberately ignore the statutory demands made by the Office regarding the information and production of investigative materials in cases of corruption and related offenses. to corruption, although the President has repeatedly warned them of their conduct. It has also happened that heads of institutions routinely undermine the independence of this office by deliberately conducting simultaneous investigations under its jurisdiction and ongoing investigations within that office in the sole purpose of: the abortion of investigations on corruption and corruption-related offenses.
Some of the above-mentioned malpractices have severely compromised the ability of this office to fulfill its mandate, particularly if it has to depend on some of these same institutions for seconded staff until it employs its own. Issues relating to the values and culture of anti-corruption work and the indiscipline of some employees seconded by their parent institutions have been revealed and have become public in some cases.
What is worrying for this office as an investigative and anti-corruption body is the refusal of the heads of institutions to take steps to enforce the basic rules governing the discipline of their institutions even if they know that their agents are under investigation, have been warned. and possibly even accused of corruption and corruption-related offenses.
The civil service, the local government service, the police service and other public services have specific laws and regulations governing what should be reserved for public officials suspected of disciplinary offenses (including criminal offenses). criminal cases in general, which heads of institutions apply, without being incited, to fight against corruption in their respective institutions. The Public Service Commission has also issued binding circulars and guidelines on the prohibition order and / or the unlimited leave of public officials suspected of serious misconduct and commission of criminal offenses.
Unfortunately, the experience of the Special Prosecutor's Office is that when it comes to fighting corruption and corruption-related offenses, the heads of institutions believe that the rules on the prohibition and / or indefinite leave of public servants do not apply to bribery and corruption. related offenses.
Public officers were charged, brought before the High Court and ordered to return to their place of work and work normally, as they had never been suspected of committing offenses. of corruption. In the first place, an officer under investigation for misconduct or crime should not be able to interfere in investigations. This explains the law and the rules on bans even before a charge is actually laid against a public official.
The Special Prosecutor's Office invites officials to attend investigations through the intermediary of their heads of institutions. There can be no excuse after the public appearance of these agents and their public plea in a trial court so that their heads of institutions expect to be informed to make disciplinary proceedings pending the end of the trial .
The special prosecutor was accused of sleeping at work while he had only three police detachers seconded from Ghana and that no prosecutor was directly employed by the bureau for reasons obvious bureaucratic and technical nature. The Office has nevertheless succeeded in investigating and bringing to justice a number of officials in the High Court for the purpose of prosecution, but officials of their institutions have refused or refused to apply the law on prohibition and prosecution. / or indefinite residence permit to deter other people from following the same path of corruption. .
The Public Service Commission has an Appendix II in one of its circulars and guidelines on public servants on leave and / or indefinite leave. Paragraph (c) states: "During the authorized period of prohibition / indefinite leave, affected officers will receive 50% of their monthly salary …" and in paragraph (g): "Responsibility to ensure compliance with Steps in (a) to (e) above fall squarely on the shoulders of institutional leaders. In the event of the failure of the person in charge of the institution in this respect, the competent disciplinary authorities should impose penalties equivalent to the value of the total loss suffered by the government or the user organization, in terms of remuneration. .
What does the government and the public expect from the Special Prosecutor's Office when the heads of institutions refuse or refuse to support the fight against corruption and corruption-related offenses? Not rigorously applying rules designed to facilitate the fight against corruption and other crimes? Corruption and corruption-related offenses are offenses committed primarily by public officials and it is generally not expected that officials of public institutions will protect public officials suspected of having committed these offenses, even when they were charged and brought before the Court.
The two cases brought before the High Prosecutor's Office by the High Court have revealed that the heads of institutions do not take the fight against corruption seriously. This shows that the government's fight against corruption still has a long way to go, unless radical action is taken against the leaders of failing institutions, as suggested by the Public Service Commission. .
The perception that corruption and corruption-related offenses are a systemic and ubiquitous enterprise in Ghana, low-risk and with many opportunities, has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt when the Office of the Special Prosecutor has dared to accuse and appear before the High Court a member of the political elite (a Member of Parliament in this case) and some public officials for abuse of public authority and for violation of Ghana's procurement laws.
A legislature and bipartisan executive bodies immediately invited the special prosecutor to pledge to usurp the discretion of the Court by agreeing with the accused 's lawyer on particular days for the trial. The Legislative Assembly, whose members also constitute the majority of the Ministers of the Executive, has gone one step further in seeking to have the Court, in writing, exercise its discretion to manage its own proceedings on behalf of the Court. Court. parliamentary immunity.
A country whose parliament and executive are coordinating bipartisanly to delay trials and bring justice within a reasonable time to the prosecution for bribery of one of its members can not seriously convince the outside world that it is not the case. he does not content himself with saying fight with the chancre.
The Law on the Special Prosecutor's Office empowers the Office to compel the production of information and documents before the courts against any public institution that fails or refuses to honor its legitimate request. This office can also go to the High Court to compel the heads of the institutions to respect the laws in force in the fight against corruption. The consequence will be that, in accordance with the rules of civil procedure, this office will have to prosecute the attorney general as a representative of the state.
Those who know the history and character of the special prosecutor know that he is ready, able and willing to follow this path, if this option was the only option left to the Bureau to fulfill the mandate effectively. the fight against corruption entrusted to him by the Ghanaian people. who supported his appointment. But let everyone remember that that day, there would be no bipartisan praise for the government – it would become a partisan game of political power. Those who think that it speaks too much or complains too much should remember that a stitch saves nine.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor can only fight corruption if the public and civil society fully support it and encourage the political elite to comply with the laws that enable it to fulfill its mandate. The President, the Minister of Finance, the Chief of Staff, the Auditor General, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the Financial Intelligence Center have so far supported the Office of the Attorney General. . However, the responses of other institution officials to the instructions of the executive branch appear to have been treated with impunity, to the extent of the archives. Corruption can not be fought against the alleged reputation of a few people. All citizens must be involved now before the chancre consumes all of the body's politics.
DONE AT OSP, YENTRABI ROAD, LABONE, ACCRA THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019
[ad_2]
Source link
