As a concerned citizen and not as puppet of the Prime Minister Jigme Y Thinley and the DPT government, I would like you to go through the following points.
i. OAG, you have said that the ACC cannot suspend the Speaker and the Home Minister as they were not in political office when it happened. Does that mean that if a politician commits murder before joining politics, he has the immunity from being suspended, and from the court of law?
ii. OAG, by trying to firstly represent the Speaker and the Home Minister and not the third person involved and by prosecuting other officials, you have shown that you protect the strong and the powerful and prosecute without mercy the weak and the common.
iii. OAG, you have filed another case in the High Court stating that ACC is not allowed to prosecute the Gyalposhing case. For your information any citizen or institution can take anyone to court for wrong doings. If you set such a precedence, then in the future you are giving armor to some institutions from ever being taken to court even if there be strong evidences against them.
iv. The High Court verdict pointed out that removal of the speaker would be possible only if the speaker is convicted of a crime or treason. To the OAG and the High Court, how can the speaker be convicted if you don’t allow ACC to follow their norms in dealing with people with charges against them? And before anything else whether one is a Prime Minister, Speaker or Minister, everyone is a citizen of this country bound by the same laws. So in this case you are differentiating the rich and powerful from the common.
v. OAG, as per our Constitution, you are the legal representative of the government. And when charges are there against individuals of the government and not the government as a whole, you are side stepping your authority and legal boundaries.
vi. OAG, if you want to quote the Constitution here are some points for you to consider. Our Constitution states, “All persons are equal before the law”. So unless the Speaker and the Home Minister are not Human Beings that are persons, they are not different.
vii. OAG, Article 8, clause 9 of our Constitution states that “Every person shall have the duty to uphold justice and to act against corruption”. So When ACC is taking the Speaker and the Home Minister to court, they are doing their fundamental duties first as concerned citizens and secondly as an institution that completely stands against such acts. “It is the responsibility of every Bhutanese to act against corruption. The Anti- Corruption Commission is responsible for curbing and rooting out corruption through timely and effective checking on utilization of public funds and persons engaged in unauthorized use of public resources. Towards this end, the Commission is authorized to carry out investigations on any person in Bhutan, regardless of status or position”.
viii. OAG, Article 27, Clause 1 of our Constitution states “There shall be an Anti-Corruption Commission, headed by a Chairperson and compromising two members, which shall be an independent authority and shall take necessary steps to prevent and combat corruption in the Kingdom”. OAG if ACC is taking the Gyalposhing case to court, ACC is doing so under this clause “shall take necessary steps to prevent and combat corruption in the Kingdom”. This is a necessary step for the ACC.
ix. OAG, does this Gyalposhing case sound very familiar to you? It is because back then as a Drangpon, you personally prosecuted a similar land case. It seems that after become AG, your reasoning has changed a bit. We are talking about the case against Dasho Pema L Dorji (ex Wangdue Dzongda). ACC, go down memory lane and dig out those papers.
Contributed by: Drukpa using our anonymous system.
- Please contribute articles at: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Or contribute articles anonymously by clicking this link.