 |
|
| Kathmandu, Saturday March 15, 2003 Chaitra 01, 2059. |
|
Trial by defamation
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of
Authority (CIAA) has now targeted five police officials, who have allegedly amassed wealth
beyond their known source of income. CIAA is undoubtedly a constitutional body, especially
set up to deal with cases of corruption through misuse or abuse of authority. But hurling
of charges in a rhetoric manner — amassing wealth beyond the known source of income
—as an excuse to scoop on anyone has brought about massive erosion in the credibility
of the Commission. While it has cut a sorry figure in the court for not being able to
substantiate allegations in many cases, the particular charge has put CIAA in poor light.
An impression is gaining ground that it is more interested in torturing and playing with
the dignity of the people than doing serious homework and investigating cases properly.
In the past also, some of the people arrested
have been mysteriously released without framing charges against them, while politicians
belonging to certain parties alone have been targeted. If CIAA functions in the shadow of
politics, it will be an unfortunate setback for those who grounded against corruption and
empowered CIAA so that it could function without hindrance and prejudice, and with
dedication and efficiency. However, over-enthusiasm at times can be counter-productive.
CIAA may have been justified in setting a high target, but it made a mistake by not making
a distinction between its role and that of the court. The ongoing investigation is clearly
at a pre-charging stage. It does not have the right to declare anyone guilty. After a
thorough investigation, CIAA must come to a sound conclusion, whether the person under
investigation can actually be charged for some crime. But in the practice adopted by the
Commission, anyone under investigation has been projected as ‘guilty’ or
corrupt. That is why even in cases where the people investigated are perceived as corrupt.
CIAA’s highhanded manner has started arousing suspicion in the public mind.
Perhaps, the police chief only wanted CIAA to be
seen fair when it booked five police officials. They were, like in many instances in the
past, apparently handed over long forms to fill up asking for details of property they
inherited or are in possession of. The manner of seeking instant information on the one
hand and CIAA’s claim in the media that they have amassed huge wealth on the other
only shows that the watch-dog is more interested in vilifying people than going into a
deep investigation. Moreover, there are reports that CIAA is also stepping into the
jurisdiction of the Lamsal Commission which is assessing the property of government
officials as well as those who have held important public offices in the past 12 years of
multiparty democracy. CIAA can gain only if it sets an example of success and seriousness
in implementing anti-corruption measures through skilled and sincere investigations rather
than by resorting to the terror tactic of defaming those under investigation. |
