Who may conduct an investigation? [51] The ACC may conduct an investigation itself or ask another appropriate authority for appropriate action. The use of the appropriate expression ‘another in my view implies that not every complaint will assume a criminal action’ character: the infraction involved could be administrative in character and internal disciplinary measures could be more appropriate. An investigation could also be more appropriately dealt with internally and the facts submitted to the ACC for consideration. To do all of the above, the ACC may make a preliminary inquiry and consult any other appropriate authority. [52] What seems obvious to me on a careful reading of the section and the Act as a whole is that it seeks to exclude and guard against hasty action. It appears to me that the legislature intended the ACC to carefully apply its mind before investigating a person for alleged corrupt conduct. Above all, what the ACC is vested with is a public power which must be exercised for substantial reasons. The power is not unfettered and its exercise is subject to curial challenge and scrutiny by the court against the standard of in the public ‘justification interest’ and on reasonable ‘warranted grounds.’ [53] The decision to investigate must be on reasonable as ‘warranted grounds’ I have shown. If there was evidence prima facie disclosing the commission of an offence, an investigation would be on reasonable It is ‘warranted grounds’. important therefore to examine what was the nature and quality of the evidence that the ACC had implicating the applicant in any offence under s 43(1). [54] The main contention is that the charges stated in paragraph 44 applicant’s of this judgment do not involve and were therefore not capable ‘corrupt practices’ of being investigated by the ACC. He also alleges that in doing so the ACC acted ultra vires its powers. Corruptly construed [55] In terms of s 43(1) of the ACA:
Who may conduct an investigation? [51] The ACC may conduct an investigation itself or ask another appropriate authority for appropriate action. The use of the expression ‘another appropriate action’ in my view implies that not every complaint will assume a criminal character: the infraction involved could be administrative in character and internal disciplinary measures could be more appropriate. An investigation could also be more appropriately dealt with internally and the facts submitted to the ACC for consideration. To do all of the above, the ACC may make a preliminary inquiry and consult any other appropriate authority. [52] What seems obvious to me on a careful reading of the section and the Act as a whole is that it seeks to exclude and guard against hasty action. It appears to me that the legislature intended the ACC to carefully apply its mind before investigating a person for alleged corrupt conduct. Above all, what the ACC is vested with is a public power which must be exercised for substantial reasons. The power is not unfettered and its exercise is subject to curial challenge and scrutiny by the court against the standard of ‘justification in the public interest’ and ‘warranted on reasonable grounds.’ [53] The decision to investigate must be ‘warranted on reasonable grounds’ as I have shown. If there was evidence prima facie disclosing the commission of an offence, an investigation would be ‘warranted on reasonable grounds’. It is important therefore to examine what was the nature and quality of the evidence that the ACC had implicating the applicant in any offence under s 43(1). [54] The applicant’s main contention is that the charges stated in paragraph 44 of this judgment do not involve ‘corrupt practices’ and were therefore not capable of being investigated by the ACC. He also alleges that in doing so the ACC acted ultra vires its powers. Corruptly construed [55] In terms of s 43(1) of the ACA: