WHAT’S GOOD FOR A GOOSE SHOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR A GANDER

By: Winstanley. R. Bankole. Johnson

The facts of the matter – or case – as well as the circumstances and ensuing narratives – were unambiguous and incontrovertible as follows:

1. The names of the beloved wife of the Clerk of our Parliament Mr. Paran Tarawally – Mrs. Abibatu Tarawally – were discovered to have been criminally embedded into the Payroll of Parliament and that she had been receiving regular monthly salaries for in excess of twenty-one (21) months, when in fact she was never an employee within the Civil Service or the Parliamentary Services Commission
2. Her beloved husband and Clerk of Parliament Mr. Paran Tarawally who in fact is the Administrative Head of Parliament and whose duties inter-alia should include verifying the monthly payroll, claimed complete ignorance of the above facts
3. Nevertheless as a family they admitted to the malfeasance and the wife voluntarily decided to refund the total amount collected over time to the government through the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). The ACC has to date have never come out clean with the total amount Mrs. Tarawally collected over time before her fraudulent acts were discovered, but by so doing they both directly or vicariously acquiesced to the commission of various serious offences under the laws of this country dealing with such crimes.

Vacillated

There was much furore when the case was first revealed, sending both the ACC and the entire SLPP government into shockwaves. Their primary concern it would appear was more to cover up the unprecedented disgrace caused within the 3^rd arm of government – our Legislature – on account of acts of impropriety by the spouse of one of their blue-eyed boys, than for the reputational damage their nefarious acts had caused the image of this country internationally or even for welfare of the wider citizenry. So the interests of the ACC on the matter soon dissipated into disinterestedness, when instead of promptly arranging the culprit(s) before a competent criminal court for prosecution, they vacillated. Yes, the vacillated. The ACC admitted that the offence(s) are indeed serious but Mrs. Abibatu had in fact started refunding the (stolen) moneys and has even promised to refund the balances.

As a matter of fact the ACC continued, the husband (who as administrative head is obligated to countersign all expenditure pertaining to the aggregates of monthly salaries disbursements given their quantum) has claimed total ignorance of the matter. And as if to pull wool over our eyes, the ACC concluded their own intervention into the matter by virtually sweeping it under the administrative carpet to within the sublime Office of the President.  In that regard the ACC asserted that because appointment of the Clerk of Parliament is a Presidential prerogative (Ref. Sec. 82 (1) of the National Constitution, relegating it to the Office of the President for the final “administrative decision” was a proper thing to do.  It has to be noted here that in the early stages of the investigations into the matter the President himself had inferred that it was his tight duty schedule that had precluded him from addressing the Paran issue promptly. However when eventually he did it was for a suspension of the Clerk of Parliament.

Questions

The entire Paran Tarawally family saga opened me to several questions:

1. The issue itself was indisputably criminal in nature. Has a precedent been set by the ACC to be relegating or referring all or some corruption cases to the sublime Office of the President for resolution outside the extant laws of this country for the purpose?
2. Virtually all appointments to Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) are the prerogative of the President, so if the ACC is correct to say that because the Clerk of Parliament being an appointee of the President can only be sanctioned by the President, does it now therefore mean that going forward all Presidential MDA appointees culpable of corruption can only be “administratively disciplined” by the President who appointed them? Or is this rule applicable only to positions that – like that of the Clerk of Parliament – does not require prior Parliamentary approval before commencement of duty?
3. Can the ACC Commissioner please inform us “Joe and Josephine Public” which sections of the ACC Act (even as amended) allows for the Commissioner to exercise that discretion of options between direct Court prosecutions and or relegation/reference to the Office of the President? And does that include even cases where the evidences adduced meet the prosecutorial thresholds as in the Mr. Paran and Mrs. Abibatu Tarawally issue?
4. If the ACC have always had this kind of discretionary settlement arrangement, why did they not apply it in the past to various APC Party culprits from whom they had collected refunds? If it is only applicable SLPP-aligned culprits, then it lends credence to former US Ambassador Maria Brewer’s observations that the ACC are not being even handed but selective in pursuing and prosecuting APC Party members only.
5. Did the action of the ACC to relegate a clear matter of corruption to the Office of the President for resolution not compromise the overall integrity and independence of the ACC Commission? In other words how “independent” is the ACC when dealing with “top notch” members of the ruling Party?

Severe

Until satisfactory answers are received to all questions above, it is clear that even within Camp SLPP the shame of the nefarious acts of Mrs. Tarawally still linger. So we read of the SLPP Parliamentary Majority Leader Hon. Matthew Nyuma and Information and Civic Education Minister C. Bah going on overdrive recently in their attempts to quell nerves and fraying tempers among the public for what they (the public) correctly continue to perceive as a blatant condonement of corruption by this SLPP government within our Legislature of all places. Though Hon. Nyuma described the deeds of the Tarawallys as “severe’ he believes that the three (3) months suspension of Mr. Paran Tarawally without salary and the five-year ban imposed on Mrs. Abibatu Tarawally were enough atonement for their sins. The Information and Civic Education Minister C Bah supported the Majority Leader’s views and rhetorically asked: “What more can we do in this situation……does the public want us to also consider public execution?”

Well Hon Matthew Nyuma and Minister C Bah permit me to defer from your appeals for the very reason that they are deceptive. Deceptive because you both very well know that Mrs. Abibatu Tarawally was never recruited – neither within the Civil Service, nor within the Parliamentary Services Commission.  So of what use is the “five –year ban” that the government has imposed on her when we all know full well that she’s never earned regular day’s wage in her entire adult life?  Banned from where?

Biased

So no Sirs, we may not be asking for the “public executions” of the culprits, because there’s nowhere in our criminal laws that speaks to inflicting a punishment so severe for financial impropriety – no matter the quantum involved.  What you both (Hon. Matthew Nyuma and Minister C. Bah) should rather do now to appease the public – using the same basis of precedential leniency showed to the Tarawally family for what is indisputably are criminal offenses – is for the both of you to please ask the ACC Commissioner to revisit all corruption matters – both under investigation and ongoing in the Courts – that have the same prosecutorial weight of evidence or lesser against all APC Party members for relegation to HE the President for “administrative actions”. After all a precedent has been set, and what is good for a goose should also be good for a gander.

My recommendation that you initiate such actions with the ACC and not directly with the President is deliberate. It is common knowledge that among institutions that have been responsible for wedging widening discords and hatred within our once cohesive social fabric the ACC through what many perceive as biased prosecutions, ranks primus.