Dear Scroo
I would like to refer you in particular to the Prevention of Corruption Act and the particular subsection he was charged under. The broadness with which the act was written means that any conflict of interest whether direct, indirect or it leads through six layers of management means that he is liable under the law. A conflict of interest can take many levels but as TCM would put it the meer appearance of a conflict of interest does not mean its very existence. The law as it is drafted assumes that as long as a favor was accepted, corruption is assumed and the onus is on the accused to prove otherwise, Frankly the law is so damm broad that even if a conflict of interest did not exists, he would still be liable to be charged. IE Miss CS was giving him a BJ because he could "help" with an IT project in say MINDEF or PSA. The appearance of impropreity is enough and with the burden of proof on the DEFENCE, its well really easy to charge and prosecute for the AGC
SC TCMs defense is bent on proving the following. That even though a BJ was optained it was concensual and that HE HAD NO PART to play in the award of the contract even though his final signature was on it. The technical issue even with the SOF is that even the AGC agrees that NBG did not INFLUENCE the tender. So all they have is the assertion that he SIGNED of on it. The interesting point is that I believe that CS first testimony was a 'forced " releationship because it was the only way she would agree to testify.
Locke