Dear Editor,
I wish to add my piece on the charges of “misconduct while in public office, contrary to common law”. A number of persons have allegedly already revealed verifiable information that is more than adequate to have the charges withdrawn. I will not repeat the information revealed by them, but rather add a new aspect.
Common law is based on custom and precedent. In view of verifiable information allegedly already revealed, there is nothing in custom or precedent that supports the charges.
Misconduct in public office is committed when the “office holder” acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the “duties of that office.” However, the duty of the chairman of NICIL was to preside over board meetings. He was not an executive chairman, and therefore was not responsible for the day-to-day management of the company.
Even elementary knowledge of management would inform you that he had no executive authority, and therefore could not make any decision, alone or with any other person. He was only one member of a broad-based board that made recommendations to cabinet.
He was not an office holder, had no executive authority, and could not make any decision by himself or with any other person. Finally, when all is considered, there is apparently no case of misconduct. It is apparently just a blatant case of harassment and malice. I think the case should be withdrawn and a public apology offered to the injured parties.
Yours sincerely,
Rooplall Sooklall
