THE EDITOR, Sir:
PERSONS who occupy public office at any level are charged with the responsibility to maintain these state institutions of which they are a part. Public institutions essentially define the state. How they are maintained, the level of service forthcoming from them, and the image they have within and without the country, make statements of value, which not only impact the respective institutions but the country at large.
The wide acknowledgement of corruption in pubic sector organisations, not excluding the JCF, to such levels that the PM had to call a summit on corruption, means that the failings of these public institutions do translate into national crises. The acne comes out in an increased incidence of crime and violence and major economic underperformance, among other manifestations of social ill. What we can deduce from this is that the compromise of rules and regulations by public officials really amounts to an attack upon the state, which could well be deemed as treasonous.
Given the access to information, which could either be falsified or concealed, as required for the fraud to be committed, the corrupt person within the institution is far more lethal than someone working from without. What happens when a crime is being reported to a police officer who himself is an accessory to the very crime?
If we are serious about fighting corruption then we must discourage this practice by increasing the penalty applicable to public servants who are found guilty. Public servants ought to be required to sign an affidavit which makes them fully liable once they are found guilty of an act of corruption. And much like probes are made in a public fashion through the Public Accounts Committee, cases that make it to the courts ought to be dealt with in an equally public manner. Public servants work for us, they must be made to answer to us.
I am, etc.,
CHARLES EVANS
charock01@yahoo.com
Manchester
