^{Session 5: Evidence}

Minister A is the Minister for Health in your government. She was committed for trial in your court on bribery and corruption-related charges. Her case came before you for trial last week.

The scenario:

Minister A’s government has allocated substantial funds to build a provincial health centre that will provide much needed medical care to the province. The funds will cover the construction of the centre and the employment of a receptionist, doctor and a nurse.

Mr. B is a junior adviser to Minister A. He witnessed a conversation between Minister A and Mr. C, a senior adviser to the Minister. This meeting took place in Minister A’s office. Mr. B was outside the office in a reception area and could see both Minster A and Mr. C and heard the conversation through an open door. In this conversation Minister A informed Mr. C that Better Health Inc., a local company, was very keen to be awarded the contract for construction and operation of the medical centre. Minister A expressed her opinion that Better Health Inc. was “…the only possible choice…” for the selection committee (of which Minister A was the Chair) once tenders for constructing and operating the health centre were received.

Unbeknown to her staff, Minister A has a gambling problem. With the advent of online gambling, Minster A has incurred a large overdraft (totalling $25,000) with her bank. There is evidence from Minister A’s Bank Manager that on 1 October the bank advised Minister A in writing that the overdraft on her account would end, and that all monies owing would need to be repaid by 14 October. Bank records reveal the following:

• A cash withdrawal of $25,000 was made from Better Health Inc.'s account on 7 October.
• A cash deposit of $25,000 was made by Minister A on 12 October to pay off her overdraft.

Mrs. D - Minister A's secretary - heard from her husband that he had seen Minister A and the General Manager of Better Health Inc. having lunch together on 10 October.