Try setting your hate, prejudice and over compensation for your cawat adventures of the seventies aside for a while so that you may legitimately engage with truth and fact:
On November 5th, 2010, I filed a complaint with the Integrity Commission about Skerrit’s violation of the Code of Conduct of the Integrity in Public Office Act. That complaint was filed pursuant to and in full compliance with section 31 of the Act which states as follows:
31. A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any person in public life has breached any provision of the Code of Conduct may make a complaint in writing to the Commission stating –
a) the particulars of the breach;b) the particulars, as far as they are known, of the person against whom the complaint is made;c) the nature of evidence that the complainant proposes to produce in respect of the complaint; andd) such other particulars as may be prescribed in Regulations made by the Minister.
(2) A complaint to the Commission under this section may be presented in person, or may be sent by registered post to the Chairman of the Integrity Commission
My complaint dated November 5th, 2010 was presented in person. The Commission acknowledged receipt in writing and in a separate letter requested the evidence I proposed to produce in respect of the complaint.
As a result, I filed a 28 chapter evidence bundle containing hundreds of pages with the Commission on December 22nd, 2010.
Under what authority do you assert Sir, that the IPO commission is not investigating the complaint?
Section 32 of the act provides as follows:
32. (1) Where a complaint has been sent to the Commission under section 31, the Commission, after examining the complaint, may reject the complaint if the Commission is of the opinion that –
a) the complaint is frivolous; orb) it does not pertain to a matter the Commission is empowered to deal with under the Act
(2) Where the Commission rejects a complaint, the person against whom the complaint was lodged shall have the right to institute legal proceedings against the complainant; but it shall be a defence that the complaint was not made maliciously, frivolously or in bad faith.
(3) No complaint shall be rejected by the Commission without giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity of being heard
Yet you feel absolutely no compunction to make this bold declaration capped with a question calculated to confuse the issue:
“The IPO Commission has not found it necessary to investigate these complaints; why is that?”
The truth and fact Sir, is that having requested and received evidence, the IPO Commission is investigating the complaint.
“To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice…” Proverbs 21:3