UK is one of the countries that is emphasizing about the importance of good governance in African countries. In my opinion good governance includes fighting corruption at any level in African countries. So why now Labour and Conservative parties they are trying their level best to stop this investigation? is this due the fact that people in management positions within BAE were caught with their underpants down doing unlawful transactions? Tories join Brown in bid to block fraud investigations Conservatives back PM in seeking power to halt BAE-style corruption inquiries David Hencke, Westminster correspondent The Guardian, Saturday April 12 2008 Gordon Brown yesterday won Conservative backing for a move that would allow the government to block future criminal investigations such as the corruption case against the arms company BAE Systems. Despite scathing criticism in the high court on Thursday, the Tories have chosen to support Downing Street in facing down critics who are keen for the BAE investigation to be reopened. Brown is said by Downing Street to have been totally behind Tony Blair in pressing Robert Wardle, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, to drop the investigation into secret payments by the arms company to Saudi Arabia. In Thursday's judgment, the high court rejected claims that the inquiry had had to be closed down for security reasons because "lives were at risk" if Britain no longer received intelligence on national security from Saudi Arabia. Officially Downing Street said the initial response to the court judgment would be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. But a No 10 spokesman said yesterday that it would still be a "hands-on" operation, implying that the prime minister might well block any move for a further investigation. Such a decision would reignite criticism from some Labour backbenchers and the Liberal Democrats who have been keen for the full investigation. And it would fly in the face of the stinging rebuke from Lord Justice Moses, who with Lord Justice Sullivan attacked the government's interference as unlawful. In their ruling, the judges said: "We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat ... No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. The rule of law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power." Yesterday the shadow attorney general, Dominic Gieve, said: "We believe the existing system, by which the attorney is responsible for the public interest in deciding whether or not a prosecution should be discontinued because of national security issues, should continue. The attorney is accountable to parliament for her actions and her decision can be challenged in the courts if made unreasonably or capriciously." This means he will be backing in principle the constitutional renewal bill which gives Lady Scotland, the attorney general, the right to block inquiries that threaten the national interest, thereby ensuring the government can get the measure through the Commons this year. Any row between ministers and the Conservatives is likely to focus on whether the new provision is too inflexible. The Tories might force the government to amend this provision. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, wrote to Brown yesterday challenging him to drop the new powers. "On taking office last year ... You recognised that the position of the attorney general had become so sullied by the BAE issue, questions over the legality of the Iraq war and the cash-for-honours inquiry, that it had to be reformed. Indeed, your Governance of Britain white paper pledged to 'renew the role of the attorney general to ensure that the office retains the public's confidence'. This sentiment is flatly contradicted by your recent proposals in the draft constitutional renewal bill. These proposals will give the attorney general effective carte blanche in future to block or quash any investigations or prosecutions under the pretext of 'national security'. "Given that under these draft rules there would be no recourse to judicial review of such decisions, do you not see that this will be seen by the public as a step backward, not forward?"