Since I took over the post at the Bureau, I have been trying to change the public perception that the Bureau is only targeting the “small fish” but never the “big fish”. I was once sent an anonymous letter which in Brunei we term as “surat layang” (literally this means “flying letter”). The sender complained that the Bureau appeared to only take on the “small fish” and never the “big fish”. Despite several complaints, the sender claimed that the Bureau never took any actions against the person the letter alleged to be corrupt. The letter ended with a question “ACB tidurkah?” (Is the ACB asleep?). I can assure the sender of the letter that we do not sleep on the information we receive. However, he must realise the distinction between what is information and what is evidence. Our courts do not convict anyone based on information but purely on proven facts or evidence. They convict based on evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies like this Bureau carefully presented by the Public Prosecutor. If information is based on one’s perception or his perceived conjecture, for instance, if the complainant stated that the he saw a minister playing golf with a businessman and he drives many expensive cars, therefore must be corrupt, this is hardly evidence under our law. It is definitely a good first information for the Bureau to initiate its investigation. It would only then become evidence, if the Bureau found out say one of the expensive cars driven by the Minister was actually paid for by the businessman friend in return for a government contract awarded to him. The Bureau would still need to prove the fact that the businessman’s money was infact used to pay for the car driven by the Minister and indeed it was “corruptly” received or accepted by him. The Bureau would still need to prove in some form of evidence that the car was a corrupt gratification in return for the favour which in this case was the Government contract. I can assure everyone, we do not reject any information outright simply because the information is related to a “big fish”. But what I cannot assure is that the information which is purely based on pure conjecture or assumption would lead to a subsequent prosecution.
Anonymous letters form essentially the bulk of the complaints and information that we receive at the Bureau. When the Bureau first receives the information, It is always impossible for the Bureau to distinguish which information is genuine or which information is solely intended to injure the reputation of someone especially if it is sent anonymously. The Bureau has a permanent complaint evaluation committee which comprises of senior officers of the Bureau whose responsibility it is to evaluate the information that we receive. Information is then valued in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the information does disclose possible offences of corruption as defined under the Act, a decision is then made collectively by the members of the committee either to initiate a discreet enquiry, perform further surveillance or open an immediate Investigation Papers (IP). This is done essentially to build up the necessary evidence needed to prove someone’s guilt based on the first information the Bureau receives. As of January this year, every complaint or information that we receive from the public is entered into a computer system. This computer system is a fully integrated information and workflow management system that allows every complaint and information received to be processed completely from the time the information or complaint is received until it is fully investigated (if the decision is to open an Investigation Paper or IP). The complaint or information we receive will be given a computer Information Receipt (IR) number. This number is generated automatically with a time stamp and it allows audit tracking on how the information and complaint gets processed at the Bureau. This avoids the possibility of the information or complaint received being lost or simply not processed through.
Because of the nature of our investigation which relies heavily on intelligence gathering, we have to work in stealth. I cannot blame the public for having this impression that the Bureau appears to be "sleeping" on the information given. The difficulty that we often face is how to strike a balance between the need to be transparent to the complainant that we do appreciate his effort in providing us the information and the need to ensure that the person investigated is not stigmatized as corrupt when his guilt has not yet been proven by the competent court of law. The Bureau also needs to work covertly simply because vital evidence could easily be lost or destroyed if the person investigated were alerted that investigation was initiated against him. This is indeed a case of damned if we don’t disclose and damned if we do disclose.
No comments:
Post a Comment