The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC

¶ 01 Madam Presiding Member, let me begin at the weakest point of the Government’s argument: the “technical error” in registration. Many learned lawyers are here. The claim is that even if there was a technical lapse in registration, there was no corruption.

¶ 02 Consider Sunway International (Pvt) Ltd & Another vs Airport and Aviation Services & Others. The tender allowed only registered companies to bid; the selected company was not registered at closing. The Supreme Court held:

¶ 03 “The court takes serious note of the fact that, in innumerable cases this court had held, that the award of a tender must be based on compliance with the terms and conditions of the tender documents on the date and at the time specified for the closing of the tender and further the State and its agencies are bound by and must rigorously and scrupulously observe the procedures laid down, in awarding tenders.”

¶ 04 So the “USD 20” story is irrelevant. Like being stopped by police without a licence in hand: showing a licence obtained the next day does not cure the offence committed at the time. Res ipsa loquitur — on the face of it, the Auditor General’s report proves non-compliance.

¶ 05 On corruption: under the CIABOC Act, it is not only personal gain; using position improperly to advantage another is also corruption. If there is a loss, someone is advantaged — that too is corruption. Even at school we learn from classic judgments: if your act sets off the chain, you bear responsibility.

¶ 06 Thank you.