Columnists

EACC-police role overlap ripe for review

DPP

Director of Public Prosecutions Noordin Haji. FILE PHOTO | NMG

The Director of Public Prosecutions is causing shock waves. Every few days, he issues a press conference updating the country on the fight against corruption.

This has led to discussions on whether the process is fair or it is a public relations exercise. Those who support the process argue that corruption had become pervasive and comprehensive action was required.

Skeptics, however, point out that the DPP is making elementary mistakes that will make the fight still-born. Although useful for public relations purposes, these people argue, they do not pass muster in successful prosecution of criminal cases.

The case that brought these contestations to the fore is the arrest and prosecution of the Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The case has raised many fundamental issues in the fight against corruption.

First, it relates to the role of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission. While one is a constitutional commission, the other is the investigative arm of the police.

In the fight against corruption, either of the two agencies seemed to be involved in investigations and collection of evidence.

At first sight there seems to be division of responsibilities and little, if any, turf wars and duplication of efforts. However, on closer scrutiny one asks why we need both agencies if they perform the same task. Should we not consider scrapping one and transferring its functions to the other?

To have two agencies performing the same functions does not speak of prudent financial management.

This is especially when viewed against the complaint that the non-constitutional commission may be preferred due to fewer legal challenges from being directed by DPP to discharge its investigations.

Secondly, there has been complaints that the key agencies involved in the fight have not been pulling in the same direction. Instead they prefer to pass the buck, arguing that each has done their bit and it is their sister institution sleeping on the job in the fight against corruption.

Public expectations was that the levels of collaboration would see the slaying of the monster that is corruption. However, this single event has raised concerns whether the public can remain optimistic about the anti-corruption journey.

Thirdly, there has been the debate about substance versus procedure. The arguments take the form as to which of the two is the more important in the fight against corruption. There are those who hold that justice is only important if the process of realising it is one that adheres to the rules and does not trample on other people’s rights.

This argument takes as its departure point that you cannot achieve justice if you ignore all rules of procedure and argue that the end justifies the means. On the other end of the spectrum are those who state that laws and the justice system have been used to subvert justice.

Therefore, fixation with rules of procedure will result in the past state where laws become a tool of trade for the corrupt to escape justice and continue with their corrupt practices.

It is important that we realise that a country that is based on the rule of law does not sacrifice adherence to the rule of law at the altar of expediency.

This way, both fighting corruption and respecting the rights of suspect should never be seen as contradictory. Instead they should be two sides of the same side.

Realising the above requires less focus on public relations and approval and more on rule of law tenets and compliance with their prerequisites.

As citizens we must avoid the temptation of either blanket support to the fight against corruption irrespective of any flaws in the procedure or being extremely skeptical and thus opposed to the work that the investigative arms are undertaking.

Instead, we should point out flaws in the process and make suggestions to correct the same.