This was contained in the final report submitted yesterday to Senate President Mlib Tmetuchl and House Speaker Noah Idechong on the investigation and oversight into the competence and professionalism of Special Prosecutor Michael Copeland.
In January, the committees asked Copeland for his response to allegations regarding his competence as a prosecutor, his overstepping the authority of his office and concerns regarding his professional ethics.
The committee expressed dissatisfaction on Copeland’s response to the committee’s queries.
“The committees find that, in his January 26, 2010 letter, SP Copeland appears confused as to fundamental principles of the law and the role of a prosecutor,” the final report said.
The committee noted an example when the SP states that, if he were to testify before the committees in a hearing, he would be protected by “congressional immunity.”
The report corrected Copeland by saying that the congressional immunity extends only to members of Congress and is therefore not available to non-members.
The committee also said that Copeland was wrong in insisting that a prosecutor has discretion as to sentencing and that he exercised this discretion in deciding to discontinue a prosecution.
“Whereas parties may make submissions to the Court as to sentencing, only the Court has discretion to determine the appropriateness of a sentence,” the report stated.
Copeland also failed to address the allegations hurled against him instead,“the SP expresses broad confidence in his competence and ethics throughout but provides no detail with regard to the very specific allegations made by the committees. For example, the SP expresses his certainty that he would have secured a conviction in a case, but presents no facts or legal arguments to support this certainty.”
In the report the SP’s response are all meaningless because he has failed to support his assertions with fact or legal argument.
The committee also called Copeland’s attack on the Office of the Attorney General as self-serving.
The public hearing held recently where Copeland appeared was also just a restatement of his letter.
“However his comments were largely a restatement of his letter to the committees and so did not address the allegations with any clarity or specificity,” the report stated.
“The committees find the responses of SP Copeland, both written and at his hearing, unsatisfactory in that he fails to address the allegations put to him in any meaningful way,” the report stated.
The committee also rejected what it “perceives as an attempt by Copeland to evade responding fully to the allegations related to his performance by accusing another governmental entity of trying to undermine the work of his office.”
The members of the committees said that SP is independent and the conduct of the AG’s Office in relation to it is “largely irrelevant. “
Senate Bill No. 8-96, a measure which calls for the abolition of the SP Office is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Copeland has resigned from his post, the committee recommended that in future, should the Office of the Special Prosecutor be continued, the committees recommend “a more thorough selection, nomination and confirmation process in order to verify the credentials, competence and suitability of the nominee.”
//
