Ramesh tells Morean to resign over Integrity Act

Former attorney general, Ramesh Maharaj, has accused the Government of acting illegally by refusing to enforce integrity laws and has called on Attorney General Glenda Morean to resign for allegedly frustrating the Integrity Commission in monitoring officials’ assets. He was addressing a news conference at his chambers at St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain, yesterday. The Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, itself birthed by the National Constitution s.138, sets up the Integrity Commission and empowers it to establish Regulations and Prescribed Forms for selected State officials to declare their interests. He said that the Attorney General and Cabinet did not have the power to alter the Forms  and Regulations, which under the Act only the Commission could determine. Maharaj insisted that the Government lay the Forms and Regulations in Parliament, and then if it so desired, it could lobby the Integrity Commission to alter their contents, for example, to request the omission of spouses and children from declaration. He later told Newsday that the Commission had an ongoing life, and therefore despite the recent change in its membership, its Forms and Regulations which its former members had approved on August 7, 2001, were still valid, and had to be laid in Parliament.

Referring to wednesday’s swearing-in of new Commissioners, he warned: “The Government cannot have new members of the Integrity Commission appointed to have the Forms and Regulations changed or to legalise the illegal act of the Government to change the Forms and Regulations. These Forms and Regulations must be laid in Parliament and the Integrity Commission can then thereafter consider any changes if it so desires.” He said the Government’s failure to appoint a new Commission after its expiry on  July 20, 2000 showed the Government’s lack of passion and commitment to deal with ministerial and official corruption. Maharaj was scathing towards Morean on her alleged inconsistency in her explanations as to why the Prescribed Forms were unavailable for State officials to declare their interests. He said Morean had told the Senate on July 1, 2003 that the Government was considering abolishing the Integrity Commission and replacing it with a new Anti Corruption Commission. Recalling Morean also saying the Forms and Regulations were being revised by her Ministry, Maharaj alleged: “This is an admission of action on her part to frustrate the Integrity Commission in the performance of its duties because the Forms and Regulations were made and agreed to by members of the Integrity Commission and she can only change them with the consent of the Integrity Commision.” “The Attorney General, on Monday  August 11, 2003 in the Newsday admitted that ‘there is no problem with the forms really’ and further conceded that the failure to lay the Forms and regulations meant the Integrity Commision could not function properly.” Saying Morean was letting Ministers escape the law which protected public monies from official corruption,  Maharaj slammed: “In another country the Attorney-General would have had to resign or be removed.”

Maharaj stormed: “If a Cabinet is permitted, under the guise of revising regulations or forms or considering replacing the Integrity Commission, to suspend the operation of laws passed by Parliament to investigate ministerial corruption and other official corruption then the Cabinet is placing itself above the Constitution and above the law...Democracy and the rule of law are in jeopardy. Dictatorship and tyranny will step in.” Maharaj recalled the Integrity Act prohibited Ministers from benefiting from insider information (s.25), influence-peddling (s.26), and accepting an unauthorised “fee, gift, or personal benefit” in connection with their ministerial duties (s.27). The Integrity Act also defined and banned any “conflict of interest,” lets members of the public tell the Commission of alleged corruption by officials, widely empowers the Commission to investigate including examining Ministers under oath, and lets it judge the consistency/veracity of the declarations made. Maharaj recounted that when he was attorney general the then Government (UNC) and Opposition (PNM) had unanimously passed the Integrity Act 2000, but afterwards some members had begun to query the requirement that their spouses’ interests also be declared.