ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL RECOGNIZES KASTOM
By Dr. Tarcisius Kabutaulaka
Manasseh Maelanga’s statement in parliament (as reported on SIBC News, July 21, http://www.sibconline.com.sb/anti-corruption-bill-could-affect-kastom-maelanga/)that the Anti-Corruption Bill could affect kastom is misleading, ill-informed and irresponsible. It is an indication that either he did not read the Bill, or he didn’t understand it.
The Anti-Corruption Bill provides that an act of exchange done according to kastom could be used as defense. Clause 93 (2) (a) & (b) of the Bill states that: “It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves that the defendant promised, offered or gave the benefit:
(a) in accordance with custom; and
(b) openly, in the course of a traditional exchange of gifts.”
So, if one were accused of corruption, one could argue and provide evidence that his/her action was in accordance to kastom. For example, a presentation of goods done in public and in exchange for goods received in public at a kastom ceremony could be deemed as kastom. On the other hand, the giving and receiving of large sums of money in private, or exchanges done in the dark of “devil’s night” might not be seen as kastom.
It is also important to note that corruption has always been illegal as provided for under Solomon Islands various laws including the Penal Code. What the Anti-Corruption Bill does is that it provides a mechanism for implementing and enforcing the spirits and substance of those laws. In doing so, there are also requirements that some of the existing laws are amended.
Furthermore, the Anti-Corruption Bill is a fulfillment – if it is implemented/enforced – of the country’s international obligations through the various conventions that it has signed and/or ratified. For example, in January 2012 Solomon Islands acceded to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and therefore has to comply to the requirements of UNCAC.
But more importantly is the hope that stricter enforcements will curtail both the prevalence and perceptions of corruption in Solomon Islands. That will be good for political culture, improve the efficiency of institutions and facilitate economic development that will benefit a majority of our people.
I have not seen the version of the Bill that is now being debated in parliament. But my concern with the 2017 version was the Applications provision (Clause 6) which states that:
(1) This Act does not apply in relation to conduct that occurred before this Act commenced.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commission’s powers under Part 4 do not apply in relation to conduct that occurred before this Act commenced.
Anyway, the purpose of my post is to point out that Maelanga’s statement was ill-informed, misleading and irresponsible.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Interesting. Dr Tara is on point with the clarification given towards the benefits of this law. In its entirety, this is a law that will definitely increase efficiency in the economy and shape political culture. What he could have mentioned and yet failed to mention was how the law would engage Solomon Islands to consistently conform to a modernistic western model of political processes, (the value of which has been the subject of lively debates so far given the ongoing perception of democracy which is largely entrenched and embedded in the system known as the wantok system perspective) and how we can still preserve our culture. As far as I am concerned, this law is targeted towards this idea that by holding politicians accountable, improvements in the material welfare of individuals will also improve the overall range of social, political, economic and institutional challenges faced by our country all across the board. As true as this may seem to be, whether or not we should argue that economic or material development, should take precedence over our political or cultural development, the fact that our economy is still largely based off on a substantive platform, leaves me wondering whether or not, Solomon Islands will still be concerned about Gods values and laws inclusive with our cultural laws, after we become economically successful. Culturally speaking, this speculation that the more we become economically engaged with global forces, the more we realize the value of money and let go of our culture, is a speculation, i believe will never change, given the roots we still share with our lands and the lessons and freedom we learnt from colonial days. In as much as we want to progress forward with democracy and the rule of law in all transactions for transparency, we know, the wantok system is alive and real as this countervailing view of people, having the opportunity to freely express themselves and to hold their politicians accountable, for the outcome of ensuring that there will be enough money and food on the table to go around and plenty of other available material goods. Lets all just be real about one thing, the church is weak. In my humble opinion, whether or not economics drives politics or politics drives economics, the truth still remains, Solomon Islands needs Jesus and land owners need a law that will guarantee access to forms of development in customary lands, in order to move development forward after this anti-corruption bill is being passed. Until we all repent from our wicked ways and land owners are taken seriously, I doubt that whatever changes we make towards the passing of the Anti-corruption bill, will also guarantee economic developmental changes that will include a more vibrant political culture and the solving of land issues for the purpose of guaranteeing infrastructure development and the transformation of how our culture is being taught, in the way we teach our culture to our children, based upon Christian values. It is a good law. I have no doubts about that, but I think Solomon Islands can do better by directly addressing the root cause for all this corruption. The truth of Gods words and simply applying and obeying it by both voters and leaders in all the laws we decide to make in the future and first deal with laws that recognizes chiefs ownership over customary lands.
ReplyDelete