Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in his contribution to the debate on the Corruption Prevention (Special Prosecutor) Act in Parliament last Tuesday, made a point in support of a position we had argued in this space two months ago.

Our position was that public pronouncements of an intention to investigate matters immediately place a cloud of suspicion over the heads of the people or entities who are the subjects of the probe.

It also leaves the investigator open to credibility questions if the information with which he/she is armed going into the probe proves inaccurate.

By then, the reputations of the people or entities subject to the probe would have been damaged, and in all likelihood would be extremely difficult to repair, especially in a small society such as ours.

As we had pointed out in our discussion on this issue in January, anyone who doubts the difficulty of repairing a damaged reputation need only ask any man or woman who, having been accused of a serious crime, was tried and found to have been the victim of mischief or malice.

We therefore support Prime Minister Golding’s proposal that under the Corruption Prevention (Special Prosecutor) Act the special prosecutor be required to “maintain confidentiality of the investigation and non-disclosure except for instituting criminal proceedings or where the special prosecutor considers it necessary”.

And the exception, we believe, will be critical, given the tendency of people in authority to leak sensitive information that would — in much the same way as a premature disclosure by the special prosecutor — raise the real possibility of frustrating the investigation.

What will be critical in ensuring that this further push against corruption is really effective is to get the right person in the office of special prosecutor.

Ideally the special prosecutor needs to approach the job with a level of fearlessness, impartiality, penchant for research, appreciation for incontrovertible evidence, doggedness and, importantly, a lack of ego.

Those characteristics, complemented by successful prosecutions, will not only win the special prosecutor public support but will help to change the belief of many people that corruption can be divided into degrees that are either punishable or not.

We note as well the prime minister’s qualified acceptance of the Opposition’s suggestion of the need for a Special Corruption Court.

It may very well come to the point where we would need such a court, especially if — as the prime minister speculated — an aggressive special prosecutor generates many cases.

However, we believe that greater effort needs to be placed on equipping the present court system with the resources it requires to function more efficiently.

As it now stands, the system is clogged and we have seen in recent weeks resident magistrates and prosecutors publicising their frustrations on a range of issues that, if fixed, can go a far way in allowing the justice system to operate smoothly.

We acknowledge that the Government is experiencing economic constraints and that it has been forced to make budget cuts in order to keep the country running. However, each time the administration is faced with making a choice in the allocation of funds, it should ponder the relevance today of Greek philosopher Aristotle’s pronouncement that: “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”