Strategically Speaking
The truth about truth commission
1/11. for one thing. has invested some of us with unique qualities of churning out unique ideas, from time to time. These are well-intentioned suggestions though, formulated (sometimes not so well formulated) to address a topical and often serious matter of state concern.
One such idea, occupying the time of the media, the politicians, and the civil society and TV talk shows these days, originating from a very active advisor, is the truth commission. One can presume that this has been primarily motivated by the need to arrest the slide of the economy caused by stagnation resulting from the many big-wigs of our business world being behind bars on allegations of corruption.
And since they control the vast majority of commerce and trade and industry in the country, their incarceration has had a most negative impact, the pinch of which we, the consumers, are painfully feeling. The fact that one of the convicted businessmen, now a fugitive, has deliberately rubbed it in on his countrymen by withdrawing the power of attorney that he had given to some of his executives to run his business house in his absence, puts the matter in perspective.
This is a deliberate act of wickedness, premeditated to put the government under more duress, and the people under even more hardship. Some call it blackmail. This is perhaps what the government wants to prevent happening in other cases.
But be that as it may, the government's concern about the general inertia of the economy is clearly evident in its attempt to conjure up an antidote for it. The truth commission is one solution that it feels might revamp the economy. Full marks for trying, but there are a few questions that need to be clarified, although there are many takers of the idea -- they have their reasons for it. I have my own for not going along with the protagonists. Here are my reasons.
It may sound daft, but I will ask anyway; what is a truth commission in the context of the current situation? Granted that the idea is still very nebulous and those who have propounded the idea are yet to give us a crystallised version of it. The concept is not new, its proposed application, however, has raised some eyebrows, for good reasons, to my mind.
The hope that making a clean breast of one's complicity or indulgence in corruption, by those businessmen accused but not yet charged or convicted, to have their sentences mitigated appears to be putting the cart before the horse.
Corruption is a serious offense, in some cases perhaps more than other culpable charges like murder, where there might be mitigating factors that could absolve a murderer. There can be no extenuating circumstances to explain away corruption. One is never compelled to resort to corruption that is motivated by greed. It has to do with morality and ethics.
Many among those in custody may feel that they are not guilty. Such people would hardly be willing to acknowledge their guilt voluntarily to escape the hassles of the legal process. By the same token, there are those who have indulged in corruption that has caused loss to the state and hardship to the people.
It is this crop of dregs of the society that will jump at what, to them, is a lifeline. Should the people stand for it, and endure their ill-practices in the future too?
Consider another reason that the government is offering as a ground for forming a truth commission. There are too many of the corrupt kind in jail, and the government has more than its handful. It will take a long time to dispose of these cases, and, gathering from the statements of high ups in the administration, it is at a loss to address the situation.
Thus, these businessmen can check out by saying sorry and paying some sort of indemnity for their corruption. That way the inevitable long drawn process would be abridged and everybody can go about his or her business.
But is it convincing argument that the prospect of being saturated by litigation, the alleged corrupt businessmen are being allowed the option of "heads I win tails you lose." I for one would like to think, notwithstanding public perception about the many of these now in jail, that one is innocent unless proven guilty. And the onus of proof lies with the prosecution.
Majority of these people are waiting to be charge-sheeted, and only a few have been convicted and sentenced so far. The clever ones might still look for a chance of any legal loopholes with a hope to wiggle out ultimately. That being the case, who would choose to acknowledge guilt and carry the ignominy for the rest of his life?
Let us look at the legal aspect of the matter.
Although the law advisor has modified his original statement, it was evident that the dispensation was meant for the businessmen only. Apart from being against the letter and spirit of the constitution that grants to all its citizens equality before law, such a commission would go against the grain of natural justice.
While all sorts of explanations have been provided about the truth commission, likening it to a plea bargain does not help to circumvent the legal procedure, since it is before a trial judge that an accused is produced, and although the trial may be dispensed with by a plea bargain, it still fetches a conviction for the accused, albeit for a lesser charge or for lesser sentence, depending on the type of bargain he or she chooses.
And even if the chairman of the truth commission were to be given the authority to adjudicate, it would be grossly unjust for those who have been already tried and sentenced for corruption charges. Will the government consider giving the truth commission a retrospective effect?
Some business brasses have suggested that these businessmen be categorised as those who used the existing system to feather their nests and those that exploited political influence for undue gains. The question is who will determine as to who falls in which category?
And, of course, it is a bad law that is formulated for a particular category of offenders, being discretionary in nature. What have the politicians, or for that matter any other offender, done not to be allowed the same dispensation? Do not overlook the fact there are in custody many businessmen-politicians too.
Truth commissions are generally "bodies set up to investigate a past history of violations of human rights in a particular country," some of their main characteristics being, they focus on the past and investigate a pattern of abuse over a set period of time, rather than a specific event. Setting up one to tackle corruption or corrupt people in Bangladesh runs the risk of being perceived as a measure to allow crimes go unpunished or to provide impunity to serious offenders. And that the government must guard against.
The author is Editor Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments