What’s next?
At the onset, it is unclear if the special prosecutor has ongoing criminal investigations to oversee. The second is whether there are ongoing investigations of leaked classified documents and briefcases of other records, (BIG SO and SMALL SO) as well as the possible obstruction of investigations, referenced and/or as may be described in court filings submitted or pending matters.
The public of Saint Lucia just doesn’t know and is not likely to be told in the “public interest” with no freedom of information legislation. Except for the fancy of the temporary privileged and petty minority.
Based on prior and recent developments, the appointment special prosecutor underscores both independence and accountability to make decisions, indisputably guided only by the facts and the law.
Presumably suggestive supposition to open investigations may specifically infer the following:
- Will the Integrity Commission, the Office of the Auditor General, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), and the Financial Intelligence Authority become an initial point of reference?
- Will there be inquiries into receiving gifts of any kind and/or for political favours?
- Will there be racketeering and campaign finance cases in an evolving legal landscape?
- Will allegations made on both sides in parliament be admissible for investigation, all being public officers?
- Has the special prosecutor received the resources to conduct this work quickly and completely?
- Are there schedules/timelines for probable investigations and at what cost? (The special Prosecutor holds office for a period not exceeding five years … unless he or she resigns under section 10 or is removed under section 13, and is eligible for re-appointment).
- Are there government agencies, or investigative teams (internal and external) with the energy and focus to follow the facts wherever they lead in a country where everybody knows somebody, including where and who they vote for?
- Will the special prosecutor fly underneath political blowback related to allegations of both public corruption and national security, in a very charged political environment?
- Will the cabinet, Parliament of Saint Lucia and senior government officers domestic and international be the first pass the post of referral for inquiries – as consummate public servants?
- Are there concerns that political organizations, politically exposed individuals and political groups can become a target?
- Will authorities investigate voter suppression tactics and modern-day measures?
- Will Saint Lucia cooperate with the US if they hand indictments?
- What type of political implications will arise, and how will the relevant parties address it?
Making policy decisions around aspects of the law, and investigation, including constitutional amendments, are very complex. This requires highly skilled individuals.
Special Prosecutor Act ‘no witch hunt’
Public integrity involves decision-making and a non-biased approach.
“This Act is not about a witch-hunt. This Act is about having Saint Lucia as a place where corruption is not tolerated or encouraged whether for politicians or public officials,” Prime Minister Pierre told legislators, last August. “There are over 90 cases of murder in the system which he [the DPP] cannot deal with. We cannot wait for the director of public prosecutions whilst the very core of our existence is being threatened by acts or perceived acts of corruption.”
— [Possible Translation! Resource Deficit.]
Saint Lucia’s deputy police commissioner Dr Mashama Sealy last month reportedly acknowledged the existence of long-standing trust issues between the public and the police.
“I joined the force in 1998, and lack of confidentiality and public trust has always been an issue between the public and the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force,” Sealy told reporters.
The Special Prosecutor Act ‘no witch hunt’, Prime Minister Pierre says. However, Section 23, (Order Paper August 9, 2023) says:
“(1) The special prosecutor shall, within three months after each financial year, prepare and deliver to the attorney-general a report of the work of the special prosecutor and the staff of the special prosecutor during the financial year. (2) The attorney-general shall cause a copy of the report under subsection (1) to be laid before parliament.”
Has parliament become a ‘Grand Jury’ or a ‘Kangaroo court’?
The abstract suggests that parliament is expected to act as an impartial group of citizens who are called a grand jury in a practical format. They call witnesses to testify, show evidence to the ‘grand jury’ and present an outline of the case.
In the norm, a grand jury is expected to listen to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then vote in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime.
This ostensibly may impact parliamentarians and, it is highly impossible, that one will act in contradiction of self. Thus, the policies of the government, needles to say are but evidence of the political imperatives.
Recent history can recall what happened in parliament with the report of the Saint Lucia Constitutional Report Commission. The Kangaroo court of parliament through it out the window with a negative vote. Why? It would negatively impact parliamentarians, then and now – adjudged – unemployable.
In the interest of elucidation from illusion, the below is reasonable and adaptable.
“We also understand, as general readers, that propaganda is real.”
The Indoctrinated Brain’, by Dr Michael Nehls. The book, which explains the neuroscience of propaganda, will chill your soul, but may explain a great deal.
“Modern general audiences also understand that governments use “messaging” – and often, heavy-handed propaganda-to lead us to take actions that can be against our interests or our better conscious judgments; to create prejudices and divisions that may not otherwise exist; to heighten fears and to trigger a sense of vulnerability in us, so that we can be better manipulated and guided to goals that are not our own.”
Related: Part 1
— With contribution from a Legal Investigator.
