The Truth Commission

The government has its rationale behind the setting up of a proposed Truth and Accountability Commission. As the draft Voluntary Disclosure Ordinance 2008 notes, the length of the normal legal process as well as the associated backlog has necessitated the establishment of such a commission. While we understand the argument, we also must note that the commission, once it is in place, will function for only six months. Our question now is rather simple: what happens once the Truth and Accountability Commission is no longer in existence? Let us stretch the thought. There may well be a number of cases the commission may not have time to deal with. Does that mean that while some people accused of corruption go free once they have confessed to their crimes before the commission, others will go through the normal legal process only because the commission will have ceased to exist?
Those who have indulged in financial wrongdoing would be given an opportunity to own up to their crimes and, on condition that they cough up their ill-gotten gains, be pardoned. Perhaps such a spirit, based on a form of plea bargain, has been at work in all this talk about a Truth Commission. Given the massive nature of the corruption issue the caretaker government is today confronted with, however, it makes sense to ask why the commission must be circumscribed within a six-month time frame and not be permitted to work as a permanent body operating on a permanent set of regulations. Such questions arise because of suspicions that the commission might target a particular body of corrupt individuals with the aim of removing them from participation in any electoral politics. In fact, Section 9 of the draft ordinance ordains that those who are pardoned by the commission will not be allowed to take part in elections or be members of corporate bodies. And yet section 9 notes that such a bar may not apply to individuals who, under certain provisions of Section 6, voluntarily come forth to disclose the sources of their illegally acquired wealth. This is a fundamental contradiction and forces us to believe that the draft needs to be re-visited.
A duality in terms of legalities threatens to undercut the process, leading to misgivings about such actions. It is these loopholes in the draft ordinance that must be filled in. We believe that the entire process must be thoroughly and rigorously thought through before a final decision is reached.
We are curious to know if the Truth Commission is being fashioned on the model already adopted by any other country. The example of South Africa, where the aim was promoting social cohesion in the post-apartheid era, is at variance with what we mean for ourselves. And, by the way, we are quite intrigued by the fact that it has taken the authorities fourteen months to draft a law that will run out in just six months!