Judge slams Integrity Commission

A HIGH Court judge yesterday chastised the Integrity Commission for exempting certain persons from filing declarations of income and assets on the grounds that a new form was required. In the San Fernando High Court, Justice Rajendra Narine said corruption occupies centre stage in the politics of the country, and the Integrity Commission must therefore seem to be politically neutral and independent. Narine delivered jud-gment in Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma’s judicial review lawsuit against the commission’s failure to make certain regulations.

The regulations relate to how enquiries are to be carried out on income and liabilities; the manner information is to be received from the public to be assessed; the form declaration to be submitted; and the period for information to be assessed. The judge stated that there had been a delay in making and publishing the regulations of more than four years. Senior Counsel Russel Martineau, representing the commission, argued that while Section 4 (1) allows the commission to make regulations, no situation had arisen to warrant it having to do so. Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC and Anand Ramlogan argued the case for Sharma on behalf of the Opposition UNC. In a 15-page ruling, however, Justice Narine noted that the commission had submitted its regulations to Parliament for approval.

However, he added, there was a hung Parliament in 2001 for 18 months. Since no Speaker was elected, the judge said, the business of the House had not been conducted. Members of Parlia-ment and, lately, judges of the High Court, must submit an inventory of their income, assets and liabilities to the commission. Narine stated that the commission had not moved with urgency to have the regulations published. Persons in public life have a right to know how enquiries are to be carried out because the act imposes serious penalties for noncompliance. Justice Narine stated: “It is therefore of vital importance that the practice and procedure of the commission in relation to these matters should be standard, uniform, predictable and should be known to persons in public life and to the public.”

In fact, Narine stated, the absence of published regulations may lay the commission open to allegations of abitrary conduct and unequal treatment. On the issue of the prescribed form not being formulated by the commission, Justice Narine stated: “To make a decision not to require persons to file declarations on the misapprehension that a new form was required is unreasonable and in direct contradiction of the very purpose for which the commission was set up.”

Reiterating that the decision was unreasonable, Justice Narine added: “The unreasonableness of the decision is patent when one considers the vital role the institution plays in the context of the politics of Trinidad and Tobago, where the issue of corruption occupies centre stage. In such a context, the commission must be seen to be politically neutral and independent.” The judge granted a declaration that there had been an unreasonable delay on the part of the commission in making regulations. He also granted an order of mandamus compelling the commission to take such steps as are necessary to lay  the regulations before Parliament. The judge ordered the commission to pay costs.