If ever there was such a thing as a damning judgment, we found it. A reading of the ruling against the Independent Commission against Corruption (Icac) delivered by the Supreme Court makes one shudder. It is frightful. The Icac is given immense power by legislation in the fight against corruption. And the commission has never been shy to exert its powers either. And it seems, never been shy to flout the rules either.

I suppose the most frightful thing of all is the realization that the Icac was not in actual fact governed by the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002 (Poca) ? it was governed by the whims and caprices of one person, Icac commissioner Navin Beekarry. When Badhain took the matter to court asking for a judicial review of his dismissal, the Icac commissioner and all those who are in his good books did not even bother to refute Badhain?s arguments, choosing rather to dismiss them with something bordering on disdain. ?The majority of them have taken refuge behind corporate affidavits (?) some evade issues (?) Their versions do not accord with common sense and are in the nature of official white lies.?

In case you are not shocked yet, those referred to are the commissioner, his two deputies and a number of people working at the Icac, whose jobs consist in investigating crime, looking for the truth and arresting those who flout the law ? to put it simply. Want to know what else they did? ?They played employee against employee, used stratagems for developing personal registers, brandishing high-sounding rhetorics to justify actions based on mere suspicions and seeking to justify questionable goals by culpable harassment, sequestration, confessions coupled with indignities.?

The judges go to great lengths to condemn the Icac?s attitude, the censure in their choice of words clearly expressing their state of mind while deliberating. On accountability, Judges Bushan Domah and Bernard Sik Yuen highlight the fact that the Icac is a ?publicly funded institution, drawing for its heavy expenses, on the pockets of the citizens of this country?. The Icac is thus accountable to the public because it is funded by taxpayers? money and the judges are of the opinion that the ?courts will be abdicating their responsibility if they did not censure such reckless public wastage.?

In the matter of the dismissals of Ghoora and Halkharee ? taken together ? the judges note that the Icac ?was in breach of the entrenched guarantees (?), of fundamental principles of natural justice including that of a fair hearing?. Icac?s powers to dismiss are however kept in check by the laws ? a point that the Icac saw fit to ignore. And the court is of the opinion that the Icac when exerting this power totally disregarded the procedure. ?The commission was thus in breach of three of its fundamental duties in a row,? say the acting Chief Justice and the Puisne Judge. That?s not it; they add that the Icac ?clearly went beyond the bounds of the law (?), it flouted the procedures as provided for under the Poca as well as its own internal rules as publicised to the world at large.? Worse still, the Icac was guilty of ?inserting conditions, which were not consistent with the Act? in its attempt to get rid of those three employees.

Wow! So now what? The question that begs attention is the following: what makes someone think he is so untouchable that he may do what he wants, including playing with the laws, changing them to suit him - in all impunity? Now, if that?s the way they treat their investigators, imagine the way a suspect would be treated. So what happens to the Icac now? The courts have decided they cannot abdicate their responsibility by condoning the behaviour of the Icac - thank Heavens for the blind woman. But, now as importantly, will Government follow suit or? abdicate?