TO LIFT AN OATH AND TO AUTHORIZE AN OATH BEARER TO SPEAK OUT? ARE THEY THE SAME?
Yesterday I posted my views on this platform asking colleagues on which law the President would used to “lift” the DPP’S Oath of Secrecy.
Clearly, there is no section of the law that awards the President that right but in the Oaths themselves which those appointed take before the President contain some wording/phrasing that suggest some kind of seeking permission or authority from the President to speak out and not lift the Oath of secrecy a concerned officer might have undertaken.
The phrasing reads: I will not directly or indirectly reveal or transmit any such information or matter as shall be brought under my consideration, or shall be made known to me by reason of my office except as may be required in the discharge of my duties as such or * WITH THE AUTHOITY OF THE PRRSIDENT*
This phrasing is found in various schedules which operationalises the sections that prescribes the taking or subscribing of an Oath of allegiance and other Oaths for the specified office by the appointed or elected office-BEARERS.
These are the Oaths contained in the Official Oaths Act: the Oath of OFFICE (Sec 11), JUDICIAL Oath (Sec.5), Oath of MINISTERS (Sec. 4) , Oath of SPEAKER (Sec. 4) , Oath of VICE-PRESIDENT (Sec. 4) and Oath of Allegiance (Secs. 4 &5).
However, the Oath of PRESIDENT (Section 3 of the Official Oaths Act) does not have such a phrasing.
Now, the question is whether to “lift” an oath of secrecy is the same as to “authorise” someone to “reveal or transmit information (SPEAK OUT)” brought to the Oath taker’s consideration in the discharge of his or her duties.
Black law’s Dictionary defines “LIFT” and “Authorise” in the following;
“To lift” is to formally remove or end a legal restriction, decision or ban while AUTHORITY is to give official permission for or approval to an undertaking or agent
In this regard, the DPP must have sought AUTHORITY to reveal or transmit information or matter (speaking out) as provided for in the Oaths she signed than seeking a LIFT of oath of Secrecy*
I find the two words’ meanings differently and their demands differently, in my view, and granting a Lift may have its grave implications than giving the permission to speak out.
Lifting of the Oath of secrecy may be like lifting an immunity of that officer thereby opening a can of worms and legal suits and exposing security details.
The question is once lift can the Oath of secrecy be restored, in this case, to a public officer?
I think permission/AUTHORITY from the President to reveal or transmit information does not require the lifting of the entire Oath of secrecy but perhaps for that particular issue/information for the sake of justice.
I submit
McDonald Chipenzi