Letters — 04 December 2005

Truly, the matter of the Ombudsman?s duty regarding corruption is simply and explicitly expressed in the Act itself, Chapter 5 of the Laws 2000. Section 22, Subsection (1) makes it abundantly obvious that what he has been saying all along is the true and correct interpretation of his role. The Act says, and I quote:

?Section 22 (1): If the Ombudsman finds during the conduct of his investigations or on the conclusion thereof, that there is evidence of a breach of duty, or misconduct, or of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of any authority, he shall refer the matter to the person or body of persons competent to take such disciplinary or other proceedings as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a special report before the national assembly.?

Before the public interest about transactions by the management of the Development Finance Corporation and by the management of the Belize Social Security Board, the Ombudsman had no way of justifying investigation into the affairs of these entities.

Furthermore, if he had been doing such an investigation, he would have followed the LAW, which tells him in plain English that his duty was to report it to the competent authority.

Sir, I really do not know what else to say. The law is crystal clear when you read and study the whole of it and not just its ?brief description? ? or the Internet.

(Signed) Paul Rodriguez


Related Articles


About Author

(0) Readers Comments

Comments are closed.