The sin not the sinner

The government and the opposition have crossed swords on whether the minister misled Parliament or not and whether he had intervened excessively in the ADT affair. Parliament has renewed its confidence in the minister.

Unfortunately, this legitimate political debate may have left a good number of us uncertain as to where all this leaves us in the fight against corruption, particularly concerning the request for a presidential pardon.

The one aspect which hurts the fight against crime and particularly that against corruption is the feeling or, worse, the suspicion that the law is not equal for all and that some may get away with murder.

In this context the issue of the presidential pardon was raised.

However, it is to be noted that the presidential pardon requested was "archived", meaning that the request for a pardon was not taken into consideration. The persons found guilty of corruption are still interdicted and their application for a presidential pardon is not being considered let alone granted.

Not only, but a fact which seems not to have hit the headlines is that the granting of a presidential pardon in the case of an interdiction could even have been premature.

This is being said because the law provides that the court itself may discontinue an interdiction at any time "on good grounds being shown to the satisfaction of the court by which the sentence was awarded". This would justify the decision to archive the plea for the presidential pardon and allow the matter to be referred to the courts, thereby depoliticising the entire issue.

The courts enjoy the independence from the other organs of the state through the protection granted by the Constitution, making the courts a more adequate venue to discuss the question of whether the persons found guilty should or should not remain interdicted.

For interdiction to public office is what it is all about and not the guilt of the two persons who have already been found guilty.

Having the courts reviewing the matter of interdiction, in whole or in part, would disentangle the issue politically as it would push it away from the relationship that must exist between the Executive and the Presidency, where a presidential pardon is concerned. A relationship which, after all is said and done, is at the root of all Jesmond Mugliett's political woes.

Naturally, it is the right of every citizen to request directly a presidential pardon and I, for one , believe that the Constitution should still allow this ultimate resort for justice to be done in cases where the rigid application of the law may not serve the requirements of justice.

However, wisdom dictates, especially in cases involving bribery or corruption, that all remedies of a judicial nature be exhausted prior to resorting to the last remedy of the President's pardon.

Therein lies the wisdom in archiving the plea for a presidential pardon.

Over the past 20 years, the government has acted in an admirable way without any fear or favour in regard to people holding high institutional roles.

A Chief Justice, a judge of the Superior Courts and two Police Commissioners all resigned from office and in the case of two of them prison sentences were inflicted and criminal proceedings are pending in regard to a third.

This is no insignificant record of public accountability and we must not throw it away.

The opposition, and may I add the media, have a vital role to play in the fight against corruption by at all times keeping the pressure on the institutions and, particularly, on the government to keep the war against corruption going.

However, even these pillars of democracy need to sometimes distinguish between the sinner and the sin committed. One must never show any tolerance in regard to the sin but one may, in exceptional circumstances, show an element of mercy if good cause is shown.

What is absolutely fundamental is that there be no attempt to "cover up" acts of corruption or to taint any process of pardon with any political colour. The very fact that the courts found the accused guilty is proof enough that there was no cover up.

In truth , the motion of no confidence presented by the opposition does not even raise the issue of a cover up in its wording in regard to Minister Mugliett who stood accused of misleading Parliament by his ambiguous use of the term "collectively" and the Prime Minister for not having accepted Mr Mugliett's resignation. Would it not be wise, therefore, to learn a lesson from all this and to make the discontinuation of an interdiction a matter of the courts exclusively?