When the
Prime Minister sued Matt Peltier, he was accused of media 'censorship';
now that he has not not sued Lennox Linton, he is being accused of being
guilty and having something to hide! Talk
about a double sided sword and and interpretation of which' is based
'purely' on political bias. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't!
Silence has never been an admission of guilt and never will be. The
Prime Minister does not have to answer to 'politically
motivated' disgruntled citizens that have made it quite clear that he is
guilty; where is the incentive to respond to people who are 'hellbent'
on his removal from office?
As I have stated on numerous occasions (with not one denial of claim),
we have the measures in place, in the IPO, the ethics committee, and the
Director of Audit who 'have not' claimed otherwise to the 'assertion'
of corruption levied against the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister command control and power over these measures
and those who man them?
Sir Brian Alleyne wrote (in response to Lennox Linton);
"So many of us disregard the demands of ethical standards and conduct
and seek to justify our misdeeds on a reliance on narrow interpretations
of legality."
INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT
SECTION 47; POSSESSION OF UNACCOUNTED PROPERTY.
Under subsection (1) of this section, if possession of property
disproportionate to a person in public life’s legitimate sources of
income has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the offense under the
section is established and the person is liable to criminal
penalties.
If the Prime Minister is guilty of living outside his means (as
suggested) why has the IPO not invoked this subsection of the act? If a
lender wants to 'risk' lending monies to someone, that is their
prerogative and risk to take; this is certainly not
the public's business! This does not constitute corruption or being
involved in corruptible acts!
Subsection (2) addresses the preliminary stage of suspicion. In order
for the Commission to be moved to investigate, the suspicion must be
“reasonable” within the definition of that term, otherwise the
Commission would be seen to be acting in an oppressive
manner, as in an inquisitorial inquiry, in the derogatory sense, defined
in Black’s Law Dictionary as “A persistent, grueling examination
conducted without regard for the examinees dignity or civil rights.”
The commission is bound by law and duty to protect the integrity
and name of all citizens, 'including' public servants during preliminary
investigations; disclosure to the public is not mandatory or
unwarranted if evidence 'substantiating a claim against
exist!
Let me remind you; the Prime Minister is also a citizen and as such has
the same rights as you and I, and the commission is bound by law to
protect those rights (without public disclosure), regardless of public
perception!
This is not the system that our criminal or civil law follows, although
there are certain proceedings, such as certain Commissions of Inquiry,
which proceed on an inquisitorial basis, whereby the Commission conducts
the trial, determines what questions to ask,
and defines the scope and extent of the inquiry.
But even in such proceedings the person’s dignity and civil rights must be respected. Thank God!
It would not be in keeping with our system of justice to embark on
such an inquiry without some good grounds for suspicion, which grounds
must be evidence-based rather than purely speculative. In addition, the
process must be guided by the general principles
of fairness addressed by section 8 of the Constitution.
To justify an inquiry there must first be a person in public life or a
person who, at a relevant time, was a person in public life. That person
must, on at the very least some possibly inconclusive or slight
evidence, but not, in
my opinion on no evidence at all, be suspected to be in possession of
property or pecuniary resources which are disproportionate to his
legitimate sources of income. Which has always been
my contention to Lennox Linton; show me the evidence!
Conjecture and speculation is not evidence, and becomes diminished in
legitimacy when it has been conceived from political bias!
That property may be held by the person himself or by another on his behalf. To
proceed on the basis of no evidence at all would be oppressive and
could be classified as malicious and vindictive persecution, a concept
far removed from legitimate prosecution.
How many times have we 'assassinated' the character of our fellow men
and women in the name of politics? Thank God the IPO sees fit to protect
those who have been 'accused' without EVIDENCE! Yes evidence!
The evidence on which the Commission may proceed must be evidence
in the possession of the Commission, which can be produced to a court
and shown to be a legitimate basis for suspicion.
Where is the 'evidence' Mr. Linton? The Dog and Pony show and
the 'Moe Green' comedy act insults the integrity of 'every' educated
Dominican; and those who have joined the band wagon, motivated by
'mischevious' political intent continue to perpetuate
a 'fallacy' that the IPO cannot qualify!
Again I ask, Is the IPO and those who man it credible and of moral fiber?
Like every other public authority, the Commission is subject to judicial
review of its actions by the High Court, and as in the Rowley case out
of Trinidad the Commission’s actions can be restrained or penalized by
injunction and an award of damages.
I guess our Judiciary is also under the spell of
the Prime Minister! Believe it or not, the IPO is also accountable 'by
law' to the people!
Professor Albert Fiadjoe in his book Commonwealth Caribbean Public Law,
at page 32, says that the courts have taken the liberty to prescribe
conditions of fair procedure in the decision making process by filling
in any interstices required.
In the end, the court will determine what is just and convenient to
maintain the action/decision of the public body. The court will seek to
find a nexus between the breach complained of and a constitutional
requirement, where there is no specific provision
in the relevant law or rules which covers the case at hand.
What is next, our constitution is unconstitutional?
Had Lennox Linton not been politically motivated, and reported his
findings without the 'manipulated' twisting of the facts as they were
uncovered (because they did not suit his agenda), we would not be here
discussing the authenticity!
The sad reality is how some has staked everything, including their moral
convictions, on his 'so called', investigative reporting. Wonder why my
skepticism still exist and why I continue to question?
My opinion.
Christian Volney
'A dishonest intellectual' and Yard Fowl!
_______________________________________________
Dominica mailing list
Dominica at dominica-my-opinion.com
http://lists.dominica-my-opinion.com/listinfo/dominica
