Along came a consultant

When Basdeo Panday pegged UNC parliamentary co-operation to constitutional reform, the UNC leader was merely stating, in a roundabout fashion, his intention to spend his time in Opposition, opposing all Government legislation. We knew that even if the PNM had on its agenda, any fundamental change to our TT Westminster, instituting this would take a few years. While Panday was waiting for that which might not happen in his time, he would be the unrelenting combatant. The Attorney General’s recent announcement to replace or reshape, the Integrity Commission, is quite similar in nature to Panday’s “no support” announcement. Mrs Glenda Morean knows well that no alteration to the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 can take place without a special majority of both Houses of Parliament. And, the Opposition has made it more than clear that this is one legislative measure it will not support. So how is the AG going to effect change — the recommendation of a UK consultant — to the Act and to the Commission? She is not. Not without the help of the UNC. Such assistance, under Basdeo Panday, the PNM will never see. It is a circular course, indeed. In the meantime, neither the AG nor any of her colleagues has filed a declaration of their assets. They have defied Clause 11 (1) of the Act, which states clearly, “A person shall, within three months of becoming a person in public life, complete and file with the Commission in the prescribed form, a declaration of his income, assets and liabilities in respect of the previous year.”

Their excuse for flouting a law they supported in 2000 is that the prescribed forms for making declarations are being reviewed. Since December 2001, which is when the AG took her oath of office? In exactly what language are these forms written? Furthermore, while Mrs Morean may have been unable to table the forms during 18-18, there is absolutely no obstacle to their presentation now to the Houses for their simple affirmative resolution. There has been none since October 2002, when the Eighth Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago convened. Several bills have been laid since then. Why not the forms? One would have thought that the PNM, which had campaigned for six years against corruption, would have been anxious to demonstrate that all was above board. It was not enough for this Government to go after past offenders by convening commissions of inquiry, or for the AG to boast that there were “no sacred cows” in the PNM. The Government had to appear as interested in curbing corruption within its own ranks as it was in hunting down the dishonest in the ranks of others. PNM MPs and Ministers had to declare their assets now, to tell us if they had accepted any gifts and from whom. The public had a right to know whether any had used insider information for self-enrichment. We could not wait on change to an Act that would never come. The AG must have known that her announcement would be met with scorn, for she chose the dead of the parliamentary night — the evening session of the Senate sitting of Tuesday July 1, 2003 — to quietly announce her Government’s intentions. Mrs Morean must have realised that any tinkering with the Integrity Commission would be considered a terrible about face for this administration.

We could not forget the regular Friday anti-corruption sermons from PNM members when they were in Opposition. We would never forget the praise heaped on the Integrity Bill during the final stages of its passage in the House of Representatives by the PNM Opposition in October 2000. This is what PNM whip Ken Valley told his peers: “I think that Trinidad and Tobago can now say that we do have legislation covering the conduct of public officials to an extent to which we can be justly proud.” The PNM had back then successfully lobbied for several amendments, it considered crucial for the fortification of the legislation and of the Commission. Now, in 2003, the Act was weak because along had come a consultant, an expert in anti-corruption matters, who said so. And in so doing, he had handed PNM Ministers and MPs, an ever-lasting reason for not declaring their income, their assets. A reason not supported by any proof, as the Act had not been sufficiently tested for such a definitive declaration. The only case that had arisen from the new Act, the one involving Basdeo Panday, had been stymied by constitutional arguments. Was the AG seeking to counter Panday’s High Court challenge to the Act? Was she attempting to enforce the legislation? It seemed not. Instead, we were hearing that a UK consultant was occupying Mrs Morean’s attention and budget. The Act was only as strong as the AG wanted it to be. Did her UK consultant know that the Integrity Act was constitutionally entrenched when he gave his final opinion? Did he know that he was dooming legislation drafted to “make new provisions for the prevention of corruption of persons in public life; to regulate the conduct of persons exercising public functions; to preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions?” UK consultant or not, it was time for the Attorney General to lay in Parliament, the forms. It was time for our public officials to declare their income and assets. The establishment of a new anti-corruption body was no impediment to their obeying a law to which they had willingly given their assent three years ago. It was also no good reason for their disobeying it.
Suzanne Mills is the Editor of the daily Newsday.