Dear Editor,
Christopher Ram sermonizes like a preacher!
The Bradford and Associates Report is exactly what it is called, ‘a report’. The recommendations made by this report are exactly what they are, ‘recommendations’.
However, the law of the land is exactly what it is, ‘the law of the land’.
I am puzzled! Should we abide by the reports or should we abide by the law? What is Christopher Ram’s classification of law?
As we all may know, the Integrity Commission operates under the legal framework of the Integrity Commission’s Act of 1997 and is functioning in accordance as it should. Who is Christopher Ram to defy the law? He has no mandate to talk about the President’s timing to request compliance of the law.
Mr. Christopher Ram should be glad that the President is executing stern action against corruption and giving the public a chance to demonstrate their uprightness in society. Is Christopher Ram against this? I see a few blunders in his sermon. A few years ago, the names persons who were not in compliance with the Integrity Commission Law was published in the daily newspapers. Christopher Ram should be clued-up that this is not the first time action was taken to urge persons to make their declarations to the Integrity Commission.
It is acknowledged that ‘The Bradford and Associates Report’, has made its recommendations and yes, there is room in future for the implementation of some of these measures; but it must be made clear, that in the meantime the ‘The Bradford and Associates Report’ is not the law!
The law of the land stands all must comply.
Elizabeth Daly