Gyalpoizhing now sub judice

Editorial: The anti corruption commission has been tightlipped, even irritated by the persistent calls from media houses, wanting to know what’s next on the Gyalpoizhing land case saga. 

Ever since the Office of the Attorney General said on September 20 that ACC’s findings did not merit the case going to court, all eyes and ears have been on what the commission would do next. 

The question was: would it take up the prosecution, as allowed by its Act that parliament passed? 

Then, last week, the saga took a new twist, when the government announced to the press that ministers, including the prime minister, who bought and were allocated plots in Gyalpoizhing, Mongar, would voluntarily surrender them to the government.

Now it has come to light that ACC has already filed a case at the Mongar district court and it has also been registered.  It is also known that criminal charges are being levelled against three people – the speaker, the home minister and another person, who was part of the land allotment committee – while the others are being considered civil cases.

There has been a lot of talk on how the commission would take up the prosecution, and whether they have people with the necessary legal background, or if they would be hiring lawyers.

There has also been a lot of discussion on whether there exists a conflict of interest, when an investigating agency also takes up the prosecution, just in the same way questions were raised on whether OAG, as the government’s legal representative, is in a position to prosecute those in government. 

Many systems maintain a separation between investigating and prosecuting agencies, because of the high risk of evidence being tampered with.  At one time, several police officers were sent abroad on long term training to help establish a forensic lab.  But later the idea was scrapped, because having the forensic lab with the police meant evidence could be tampered with.

Still the police do take to court cases it has investigated, which is exactly what ACC is doing with regards to Gyalpoizhing. 

No matter what perceptions might exist, it is the judiciary that will make the final call on the evidence provided.  Which basically means that, on this journey to democracy, an independent and strong judiciary is one of the pillars everything else will rest on. 

The good thing about ACC taking up the prosecution is that it will, or should, bring closure to a case that has festered for so long.  The absence of closure to cases has been a glaring weakness that everyone is aware of. 

Which way the verdict might go should be out before the year ends but, at least, the commission is using all options available, which it must, lest in the future it be accused of not doing so.