CM told to call a special session of the Assembly on the issue
IAC calls for a separate investigation and prosecution wing
TEAM HERALD
teamherald@herald-goa.com
PANJIM: Civil society coming under the banner of India Against Corruption (Goa Chapter) on Saturday demanded that Governor Bharat Vir Wanchoo withhold his assent to the Goa Lokayukta (First Amendment) Act 2013, protesting the ‘non-transparent and hurried manner’ in which the amendments to the Goa Lokayukta Act were passed during the just concluded Assembly.
“The amendment is like an umpire declaring the player out and then the captain of the team would decide whether the player is out or not,” Dr Oscar Rebello said.
AITUC’s Christopher Fonseca argued that this amendment made the chief minister a super Lokayukta. He also accused both the opposition and the ruling politicians of match fixing.
“Opposition is hand-in-glove…” Fonseca charged, retorting when he was asked whether he felt that Opposition and ruling party were both in this together.
“This not a question of feeling, but fact,” Fonseca asserted.
When it was pointed out that Parrikar was named politician of the year, Satish Sonak said that Goa required statesman and not politicians even as he questioned whether the CM had the credibility to question the integrity of a person of the stature of Justice Santosh Hegde “the best Lokayukta of India.”
A media briefing that included former editor Sitaram Tengse, activist Fr Bismarque Dias besides Dr Oscar Rebello, niece of late activist politician and close confidant of chief minister Matanhy Saldanha ~ Melissa Simoes and IAC member and lawyer Satish Sonak also wanted the Governor ~ prior to appointing Lokayukta ~ to ask Justice B Sudarshan Reddy whether he had requested the Chief Minister to introduce Section 16A, the deemed rejection clause, as claimed by the CM recently.
As he put it, IAC demanded that the Chief Minister “take steps to ensure that a special session of the Goa State Legislative Assembly is immediately called to facilitate repeal of the Goa Lokayukta (First Amendment) Act 2013” and to introduce “a comprehensive amendment on the lines of Uttarakhand Lokayukta Bill, as promised earlier.”
IAC demanded that the government should, like the Uttarakhand Bill, provide that the Lokayukta will have a separate investigation and prosecution wing and shall also have power to appoint Director of Prosecution and that if the Investigating Officer finds any property or asset which appears to have been acquired by the corrupt acts of an accused person, it shall make an order to attach those assets.
The Special Court will pass an order for the confiscation of all such assets and properties.
IAC (GOA) PUTS FORTH ITS ALLEGATIONS/DEMANDS
• The amendments contradict CM’s earlier promise of functioning under Goa Lokayukta for six months before making any amendments.
• Replace “Minister may resign” with Minister shall resign in Section 16A of the amended Act
• Include provision for compulsory arrest of guilty ministers and treat offences as non-bailable and cognizable.
• Replace ‘deemed rejection clause’ with Uttarakhand Act provisions which empower Lokayukta to approach High Court for seeking appropriate directions to public authority if Lokayukta’s recommendation rejected or not complied within 15 days.
• Give power to Lokayukta to recommend cancellation/modification of lease, license, permission, contract or agreement, if obtained by corrupt means as in Uttarkhand Act.
• Give power to Lokayukta to recommend blacklisting of a firm, company, contractor or any other person, involved in an act of corruption.
• If during any investigation under Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta is satisfied that any preventive action is necessary in public interest to prevent the ongoing incidence of corruption, give power to Lokayukta to make any recommendation to the public authority concerned to stay the implementation or enforcement of any decision or take any such action as is recommended by the Lokayukta.
• Give power to Lokayukta to issue appropriate directions including transfer or suspension of government servant, if during the course of investigation into a complaint, the Lokayukta feels that continuance of a government servant in particular position could adversely affect the course of investigations or that the said government servant is likely to destroy or tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or is likely to continue with corruption.
• Give power to Lokayukta to direct appropriate authorities (at any stage of investigation) by an interim order to take such action as is necessary to prevent the public servant from secreting or transferring the assets allegedly acquired by public servant by corrupt means.
