SUMMARY OF MY CONTRIBUTION ON REMOVAL OF DPP
“…. let the DPP go ahead and give her defence based on evidence – classified or not classified – the law supports the use of such classified information.”
1. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not above the law and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Complaints Commission, in same manner judges and judicial officers are.
2. DPP can appear before the Commission and submit any evidence which is classfied, without the Oath of Secrecy being lifted “if it is in the interest of the Republic that the information is communicated” to the JCC for purposes of performing a constitutional duty (See Section 5 of the State Security Act).
But there is one serious danger and in my view this is where the President may have refused to grant authority (although I think she can still go ahead and give JCC evidence that is classified on basis that it is in the interest of the Republic or that she is performing a duty of being answerable to JCC):
A). No one knows what evidence the DPP wants to rely upon to defend herself, especially if the evidence is classified and DPP may want it to defend herself on the basis of an established and accepted practice in the office of DPP but it ends up damaging more public interest and put many others into firing range.
B). What if the evidence implicate other constitutional office holders who have allegedly been part of immunity bargains, will such people have sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and be cross-examined when such evidence is adduced?
(C). JCC proceedings are supposed to be in camera and no information is supposed to go out but sadly, we have seen social media publish stories about those proceedings.
Wont presentation of any classified information find itself in public domain and raise public debate against persons or institutions that may not have had an opportunity to defend themselves? Will classified information so presented damage public interest when it is found in public domain?
By Isaac Mwanza