Dear Editor,

I do not know which parliamentarians are under probe by the Integrity Commission for illicit enrichment. However, I’m strongly of the view that calls for them to be named and asked to recuse themselves are manifestly morally and legally unjust.

We should recall that three years ago the Integrity Commission had indicated that two parliamentarians were under probe for illicit enrichment. To date, no parliamentarian has been prosecuted by the commission for that crime. Is it really a solid argument to posit that those parliamentarians should have been named then and perhaps compelled to step aside? I think not. Had that transpired, those two would have been in limbo for three years. Is that fair to elected and appointed officials, or anyone for that matter? I do not think so.

Additionally, to call for naming and sanctions at the investigation stage, especially in circumstances in which the commission appears not to have solid enough evidence to proceed in respect of the initial two mentioned in a parliamentary report despite the passage of three years, would be unjust and a breach of due process. Had calls in the press for this to have happened been yielded to we’d have had a situation in which two Members of Parliament would have been sent on an indefinite period of leave while the commission ostensibly takes its own time to probe. Not a tenable situation.

The name and recuse them proponents should also recall that the UK’s highest court recently ruled in favour of arguments which cited as unjust and unfair naming people at the investigatory stage. The UK Supreme Court ruled that suspects in a criminal investigation have the right not to be named by the press until charges are brought.

The facts of the case are that UK-based media house Bloomberg had obtained a confidential letter written to a foreign State by a UK law enforcement agency asking for information and documents about a businessman under investigation, the publication subsequently posted an article naming the man and giving details about the investigation.

This was met with a lawsuit from the businessman for the misuse of private information, and both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that Bloomberg had breached his Article 8 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. He was also granted an injunction and awarded damages of £25,000. In essence, the courts agreed that a person has “a reasonable and objectively founded expectation of privacy” while under investigation.

Therefore, there is strong recent and credible legal precedent that renders legally unsound calls to name the parliamentarians who the Integrity Commission has told us are under probe. It’d be manifestly unfair.

We should also recall the former Office of the Contractor General, which has been subsumed into the Integrity Commission, recommended dozens of high profile public officials for prosecution but none was prosecuted as the probe did not meet the threshold required for a viable prosecution. The sole outcome of those investigations and referrals was the tarnishing of the reputations of the officials. That’s an unjust outcome as everyone is entitled to their good name unless there’s compelling evidence to the contrary which is provable in a court of law.

Given that track record, how seriously should we, therefore, take this announcement that six parliamentarians are under probe and calls for the parliamentarians to be named? I know there’s a perception that the political silly season is upon us, but we should not take these calls seriously.

Bev Buchanan

beverleybuchanan1978@gmail.com