WHY DISCLOSURE IS EVERYTHING

WHY DISCLOSURE IS EVERYTHING

In December1998, the then British Trade and Industry, Secretary Peter Mandelson, was forced to resign for ethical personal reasons, after revelations that he received an undisclosed personal loan of 373,000 pounds from the Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, to buy a house.

Strictly speaking, Mandelson didn't break any rules or laws by collecting a home loan from his friend Robinson. The problem however is that at the time Mandelson collected the home loan, the Department of Trade and Industry was investigating Robinson's business interests. Mandelson was expected to disclose that loan to avoid a conflict of interests. If you received personal favours or loans from your friend whose businesses came under investigation by your Department, it is ethically appropriate to disclose those favours to avoid a conflict of interests.

Some people argued that the 250,000 naira Ricky Tarfa allegedly gave or donated to a Court Judge Yunusa for the burial of his father is a drop in the ocean to be an issue, despite the EFCC's insistence that it was a bribe. If Tarfa had disclosed this donation from the beginning, he would have knocked the bottom out of EFCC's allegations that it was bribery. The fact that Tarfa has a case before the Judge and the sheer coincidence of the donation, compounded by the fact that the donation was not officially disclosed to avoid a conflict of interest, is not an issue one can validly explain or defend. Insisting that 250,000 is too derisory to induce a Judge is beside the point. Why was this donation to Yunusa not disclosed in the first place? That neither Tarfa nor Yunusa disclosed this donation is bad enough for both the Judge and the lawyer.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by Easyblaze