う
them were in strong support of some kind of an amnesty, to absolve those who were guilty of corruption offence before a certain time. Their real reason for pushing this idea of leniency did not stem from their belief that the Police were not corrupt, but from their anxiety to ensure the security of their own life and personal properties.
5.
The problem of accountability was also raised, members of the public had asked that if corruption was known to have existed over the years, the Administration should be held responsible for not improving on the loopholes and inadequacies of the system and so allowing people the opport- unities to be corrupt. In arresting the lank and File, per- haps the top-level officers in the Police Force should also be interdicted and investigated either for not taking any action to stamp out corruption or for sheer ignorance.
6.
At the same time, the public had urged that policy of leniency in handling rolice corruption should be further considered by the adinistration in the lint of several factors:-
(a) The prolon;;ed period of ICMC investigation
and interdiction of any person suspected of corruption has really caused tremendous emotional unrest and mental strain not only for the suspects themselves but also for their family and associations.
(b)
(c)
The validity of using 'tainted witnesses' who were usually people convicted of corruption and serving a prison sentence, the 'bri es' offered to them, either by way o cash or a less severe sentence so that they would willingly act as witnesses for 1URU. The procedures of lUAC inve.tigation was considered unfair. The ublic believed that in the first instance, 10AC would interdict a lot of people on the evidence of the tainted witnesses alone and when there was no real proven evidence, then to allow the case to develop naturally and over a long period of
/time