Posted by HIUARE.W In other words, LCC limited powers under the Act must be defined. I have a fear that LCC has stepped outside of its legal powers under the Act, in particular the determination of laying the charge of marital affair as misconduct under the Act. Appealing LCC's decision to to the High Court in order to ascetain questions of laws involve in this case is a probable action. Hiuare.W.
on 13/4/2006, 2:09 pm
202.151.26.175
The LCC has done its part however it has a statutory duty under the Leadership Code Act to ensure that justice is seen to be done.
Here I have raised three preliminary questions in order for LCC to verify.
1) Whether Alfred Sasako was given right to be heard or fair trial. Rules of natural justice demands LCC to answer it. If Sasako and his lawyer were given opportunity to be present and response to those charges, then one could say that fair trial is seen to be done. But if neither his lawyer nor Sasako were given opportunity, then justice is not seen to be done.
2) Whether marital affair amounts to misconduct under the Act? The Leadership Code Commission Act does not define the kind of conducts or misconducts construed as misconduct under the Act. Because of this uncertainty, LCC must caution in determining what kind of conduct amount to misconduct as intended under the Act. Given lesser care on this, will allow LCC to step beyond its powers which gives rise to the issue of ultra vires.
3) Whether LCC has considered other factors in coming to its decision? In fact, the Act commits LCC to come up with three options. This includes either to impose warning or reprimand, fine and refer the matter to the Court. Has LCC considered given warning or reprimand? Of course, Sasako is a Minister of the State. He has contributed so much to the State during the 8 years. This is the first complaint lodged against him? Did LCC consider his position in those capacities? Did LCC consider the option of reprimand or warning? In relation to the marital affair, he had compensated the lady’s side with large sum of money already according to custom. Did this compensation shows genuine mitigation on the part of Sasako which LCC ought to consider? $2,000.00 is the maximum amount under the Act. Did LCC consider a lesser amount or no amount at all bearing that Sasako had paid off more than thousands, in the eyes of customary law. Did the decision is reasonable? Does it mean that any public officer who is found guilty of adultery that officer is liable to be punished with maximum fine of $2000.00 irrespective of his/her standing/contributions to the State. These are few questions which I believe, will draw light upon LCC’s actions against Mr. Alfred Sasako.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread