A cause célèbre

( September 23, 2012, Thimphu, Sri Lanka Guardian) With the office of the attorney general having thrown out Anti Corruption Commission’s investigations on the Gyalpoizhing land allotment case on the grounds that it has no legal standing, everyone is wondering what will be ACC’s response.

Besides issuing a press release and posting a review on the ACC findings on its website, the Attorney General did not have much to say on Thursday.

The ACC apparently went into a closed-door meeting soon after it heard the pronouncement, and has begun reviewing what some have termed a ‘defense’ against the findings and charges of the investigations.

At this stage, the ACC is not saying much either, other than it is looking into OAG’s review.  Given the enormous attention this case has drawn, a well thought out and reasoned response would make more sense than any reactive statements.

But there are plenty of views elsewhere, which some are viewing as a contest between two autonomous constitutional agencies, and important ones at that, in the world’s youngest democracy.

The views being sounded off are for and against the ‘opinion’ expressed by the OAG.  Not many are buying the OAG’s argument that, because the town committee was legally formed, what it did in allotting plots was legal.

There are many committees that are formed legally, but it does not mean that, if they do something illegal, it will be considered legal.

Those, on the other side of the fence, are going with the OAG’s stand that there isn’t compelling evidence to prosecute the committee members of any criminal intent.  Some are even questioning whether ACC as an institution established in 2006 should investigate a case that goes back to the start of the new millennium.

The OAG has termed the illegal actions of the committee members as administrative lapses, and recommends administrative action.  What would this constitute?  A letter of reprimand?

Whatever the arguments, the case has become overtly politicized, because the OAG is affiliated to the government by virtue of being the government prosecutor and legal advisor.  Even if it was acting independently of the government, its review is likely to be seen as ‘defense’ by a government agency.

What remains is whether the ACC takes up the case independently, as allowed by its Act.  There is also the question of whether the law can be applied retrospectively.

It has been done, once in the past, in the Phobjikha land case, which ACC investigated and the plot in question, belonging to the government, was taken back. What happened next is shrouded in mystery.

Whichever way it goes, it should not convey the sense that there are two laws in this country.

( Editorial: Kuensel, a daily newspaper based in  Bhutan)