CLARIFICATION PLEASE!

The second last session of the Parliament of Bhutan saw extensive debate on the Annual Report submitted by the Anti-Corruption Commission. There were praises, allegations, accusations, emotions, anger, excuses, worries, satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In effect, it was in no short of drama.

While I am not sure of what public in general made out of this whole saga, as an anti-corruption activist and as someone working for the agency dedicated and mandated to combat corruption by no less than the Constitution of the country, I am tempted to clarify certain things.

The Minister, Ministry of Health raised issues on investigation in his Ministry and alleged ACC of unnecessarily  prolonging investigation in his Ministry and called upon the house and Anti-Corruption Commission to complete investigation in Ministry of Health as soon as possible.

While it is true that the Ministry of Health has been under the scanner of ACC for almost four years, it is factually incorrect to say ‘ACC is unnecessarily prolonging investigation there.’ It is FACTUALLY incorrect because, ACC has, over the period of four years, completed 8 corruption cases in Ministry of Health, of which 5 cases have been put before the Court of Law through the Office of the Attorney General and 3 cases are being reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General for necessary prosecution. Given the constraints and the nature of the task, unearthing 8 cases in four years is indeed timely and comparable with any standard of criminal investigation in the world. Mind you- proving beyond reasonable doubt is the principle and fulfilling it is not anyone’s cup of tea.

Opposition Leader called upon the house on the need to include names of those alleged and accused in the annual report of the Commission.

While it is easy and sounds fancier to include names of alleged or accused in the report, it is legally incorrect to do so. It is legally incorrect because, under our law, one cannot assume anyone guilty until proven and naming people in the report would invariably take to mean such assumption.  Mind you- ‘presumption of innocence’ is the principle and not abiding by it would have legal implications like in any other jurisdictions where the onus to prove lie with the accuser.

to be continued