Integrity Commission judgement

We hope the members of the Integrity Commission will pay close attention to the scolding given to them by High Court judge Rajendra Narine. For not only was it a proper scolding, but a well-deserved one as well. Justice Narine’s judgement came down in favour of a judicial review lawsuit relating to the commission’s decision to exempt Members of Parliament and other public officials from declaring their assets during the 18-18 deadlock in 2002. The lawsuit was filed by Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma, and must therefore be seen as a political manoeuvre. But this does not negate the soundness of the judge’s decision.

“To make a decision not to require persons to file declaration 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,” declared Justice Narine in his 15-page ruling. He went on to point out the vital role the Integrity Commission plays in the nation’s politics, where corruption is seen by citizens as a key issue. “In such a context, the commission must be seen to be politically neutral and independent,” the judge asserted. This is the second judgement brought against the commission this year. Only last month, Justice Peter Jamadar ruled that the commission was wrong not to disclose the names of public officials who had not filed their declarations for 2003.

We hope that these judgements will cause the Integrity Commission to review their modus operandi. We understand that the commissioners have a fine line to tread. They are entrusted with confidential information and must carefully weigh how they act, or do not act, on that information. But it sometimes seems as though the commissioners see themselves as colleagues to politicians in the Parliamentary system. Crudely speaking, this is true. But the commissioners, lest they forget, are there as a check to political corruption. As such, when given a choice between viewing MPs and public officials with a benign or with a beady eye, they should always choose the bead.

The contempt with which politicians view the commission was succinctly demonstrated by Point Fortin MP Larry Achong who, when asked why he had not filled out his declaration form, replied that he had forgotten. The public perception is that the commissioners view their posts as a sinecure, rather than the key public responsibility it is. Far from being proactive, they have taken action only when goaded into it. The most recent example of such action was, of course, the investigation into former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday’s declaration — a case which is now before the courts. But, having been forced by public outcry to act against the UNC leader, the commissioners should have had the savvy to see that it was now crucial they should not be seen as partisan.

It is within the Commission’s power, for example, to investigate the appointment by Prime Minister Patrick Manning of his wife as Education Minister. The spending by the Government on media ads to promote its position on the Police Reform Bills and various Ministers also warrants a few hard questions. At any rate, rumour has it that the commission now has to investigate two PNM Ministers. We hope that their handling of this matter will reveal a fresh outlook.