ON THE REMOVAL OF THE ACB BOSS - Realtime Interview JOURNALIST: With the absence of the ACB Director, how effective can the bureau operate? THE GOBZ: With the absence of the Director, the Bureau can still operate very effectively, subject to the fact that the Deputy Director will definitely be overburdened, since, under section 8 of the Corrupt Practices Act, the statute that creates the Bureau, if there is no Director then the Deputy Director shall act as Director. This provision is meant to ensure continuity of the functions of the Bureau in the absence of the Director and it avoids disruption of the Bureau’s work due to absence of the Director. JOURNALIST: Some are speculating that the removal of the ACB Director could have been done on purpose to block the investigations into the Presidents late brothers foreign accounts. Whats your opinion? THE GOBZ: My opinion is that, in the absence of evidence, it is hard to pin down the main reason why the Director has had to be removed. However, a few considerations may tend to justify people’s speculations. You see, under section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act, a Director can only be removed from office by the President for two reasons: first, for inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or from any other cause) or for misbehaviour; and secondly, pending investigations to determine whether or not the Director may be removed from office as aforesaid. Further, the President cannot remove the Director on his own without ultimate confirmation of such a move by the Public Appointments Committee. There is no any other way a Director can be removed from office other than those two. Now, the million-dollar question is: Did the President remove the Director pursuant to the dictates of the law? From what the media has reported on the issue so far, it would seem that the President did not comply with the law because, as per Governments explanation, the removal of the Director was based on Governments mandate to reassign its employees anytime it sees the need to do so provided it is convinced that the expertise of a particular individual would be useful in the concerned department. This line of reasoning is very illegal, in as far as removal of the ACB Director is concerned, because under the law the Director cannot be removed based on such kind of logic. Further, there was no confirmation of the removal by the Public Appointments Committee. In my opinion, everybody should be suspicious in such circumstances. JOURNALIST: Does the constitution prescribe a time frame when the director can be appointed? THE GOBZ: The ACB is not a constitutional creature. It is rather a creature of the Corrupt Practices Act. Appointment time limits are provided for under section 8 of the said Act. Where the period of such temporary absence has exceeded twenty-one days, the President is under a duty, within fourteen days thereafter, to furnish to the Public Appointments Committee the reasons why the vacancy in both or either of the two offices cannot be substantively filled with immediate effect and an estimate of the time within which the vacancy shall be filled, being not longer than three months from the expiry of the period of twenty-one days herein referred to. Simply put, the law requires the post to be filled within three months after twenty one days have lapsed from the date the Director was removed. JOURNALIST: Any additional comments on the subject? THE GOBZ: I have always wanted to work with the DPP led Government. I do not think Pedro would make a mistate if he appointed me Director of the ACB. Savvy?
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:37:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015