Appeal Court to rule on Integrity Commission regulation

As a result of the commission’s failure to have the prescribed forms for those who hold public office to indicate their assets, income and liabilities, as required by the Integrity in Public Life Act, several parliamentarians and others did not make a disclosure for the year 2002.

Member of Parliament for Fyzabad, Chandresh Sharma, filed for judicial review against the commission’s failure in this respect, and the judge ruled in his favour. The commission appealed and the matter was heard yesterday before Justices Margot Warner, Stanley John and Allan Mendonca. Representing the commission were Russell Martineau SC, Deborah Peake and D Ramkissoon, while Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC, Anand Ramlogan and Narendra Lalbeharry represented Sharma.

Ramsahoye suggested that if the commission did not have the "prescribed" forms, it should have allowed those who were required to make declarations to do so in a statement instead of exempting them altogether for the year 2002.

He contended that these declarations amounted to a requirement of the Constitution, since the Constitution demands such from the Integrity Commission.

Ramsahoye explained that the form is the machinery (of the section) by which the information is presented to the commission. He insisted that the judge was also correct to hold that the delay in promulgating regulations led to frustration in the working of those provisions of the Constitution which were intended to have a functioning and effective Integrity Commission in TT. Martineau reminded the court that it was up to Parliament to make those regulations, and no matter what the commission did, it was of no effect until Parliament gave approval. therefore, how could the commission be accused of serious dereliction of duty? The court will release its judgment on a date to be fixed.