The Editor, Sir:

The Government's decision to exempt some agencies from those which the contractor general may investigate might have surprised some people but should it? Upon scrutiny, it seems to be a continuation of a trend to neutralise or circumvent institutions which are not under direct control of the executive. The contractor general, being a creature of Parliament, must function within the boundaries prescribed by Parliament. If Parliament is uncomfortable with the intrusiveness of the contractor general, rather than trying to get into a battle with him, Parliament merely sets new boundaries. This is clean and legal.

Special prosecutor

Thank goodness the auditor general and the director of public prosecutions are creatures of the Constitution. They cannot be hobbled by Parliament's discretion or indiscretion. The framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom, placed those institutions outside of the control of the executive and also protected the tenure of their office. The creation of a special prosecutor who will not be a creature of the Constitution but that of Parliament will ensure that the special prosecutor will be subjected to the control of the executive. He can be sent to hound those chosen and restrained from those similarly chosen to be exempted.

The abuse of the State's awesome power to prosecute can easily be transformed into an instrument of persecution. The performance of United States Special Prosecutor Ken Starr should indicate the negatives of prosecutors who are under political directives.

If the intention is to have clean, transparent governance, I ask: Why not strengthen the constitutional institutions? If we fail to learn from the mistakes of others in history, we will repeat them. Do we want a Jamaican Ken Starr experience? We can combat corruption without exposing ourselves to persecution. Remember the Jamaican proverb: 'Tek sleep an' mark death.'

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

luciuswhite@hotmail.com