Country still waiting for Integrity Commission

And, judging from the lack of hype or public discourse on the controversial issue, it does not appear that one would be appointed any time soon.

For some, the initial furore over the non-appointment of the commission has fizzled out to the point where the issue is almost dead.

But to others, the reality is that the unfortunate events of last May following so closely on the heels of the disintegration of the previous John Martin-led commission over the Landate affair involving former government minister Dr Keith Rowley has, in many respects, tainted the country’s international image, public confidence in such commissions and their significance in relation to the mandate which they were established to carry out.

The Indo-Trinbagonian Equality Council (ITEC) subscribed to this view, so much so that it took the matter to the San Fernando High Court and is eagerly awaiting an outcome.

ITEC chairman Devant Maharaj, who said he had a number of discrimination matters before the commission, had argued that the prolonged absence of the Commission was a breach of the constitutional rights of citizens to protection from the law.

The situation, he insisted, also opened the way for corruption and abuse of power since specified groups of individuals were required to declare their assets to the commission under the Integrity In Public Life Act.

The Opposition United National Congress is also incensed about the collapse of the Commission and filed a motion of no-confidence in President Richards with Speaker Barendra Sinanan.

The UNC had also called for a tribunal to be established to remove Richards from office.

In a recent interview, UNC Chief Whip Dr Hamza Rafeeq said that Sinanan had effectively denied the motion on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Sinanan, who is said to have obtained legal advice on the matter, pointed out that the motion did not meet the criteria under Section 36 (1) (b) of the Constitution, which outlines the procedure for the removal of a President.

However, the Speaker has invited the Opposition to re-file the motion.

So, what does the absence of an Integrity Commission mean for the future effectiveness of this watchdog of the public purse – one which plays a critical role in monitoring behaviour in public life so as to reduce white collar crime?

Days after its demise, schools supervisor III in the North Eastern educational division Elma Joyeau-Campbell offered a poignant take on the issue.

She told a graduating class at Manzanilla High School on May 30, that President Richards could not have appointed an Integrity Commission “because, maybe there are no Trinis left to make a good name.”

Her statement provoked thought, evidenced by the nods of approval she had received from the audience.

Joyeau-Campbell, who had delivered the feature address, lamented the scenario, saying it reflected poorly on the stability of the country’s institutions and the movement toward responsible governance.

Former President of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) The Rev Cyril Paul shared her sentiments.

“Seeing that such a long time has elapsed after the falling apart of the Integrity Commission and a new one has not been appointed yet this is worrisome and regretful,” the outspoken Presbyterian minister said in an interview.

“It begs the question whether we do not have people in a country with a population of 1.3 million with integrity. Why can’t we find just five people?” Paul asked.

For Paul, the issue of an absence of an Integrity Commission should have never come about.

“It is embarrassing...We must be the laughing stock of the Caribbean and the world,” he stressed.

“In a democracy, we need institutions like the Integrity Commission because it has important work to do. It is a mockery of our democratic society.”

Does the argument that there are no citizens with integrity left in the country have merit?

And is it realistic for citizens to expect that those serving on such commissions should be beyond reproach?

Social and industrial psychologist Courtney Boxhill says it is unrealistic for citizens to expect that members serving on the commission would be squeaky clean.

“That is almost impossible,” he declared.

“We all have skeletons in our closets, to different degrees, of course.”

What may be the deterrent, Boxhill said, was the fact that persons serving would themselves be required to declare their assets.

“People don’t want to do that, especially if their assets are substantial,” he reasoned.

Defining integrity as the “ability to seek the truth and see it openly when you find it, no matter what,” Boxhill however, poured cold water on the view that there are no people in the country capable of serving on such commissions.

“I have integrity and I am sure there and hundreds of others out there,” he said.

Retired head of the public service Reginald Dumas had a slightly different perspective.

“It is quite clear that people of goodwill do not wish to accept any invitation to serve on an Integrity Commission in light of what has happened in recent times,” he said.

“As a result, the President is in a bind because people do not wish to associate with failure and unfavourable exposure. They have lost credibility in him.”

Former chairman of the Police and Public Service Commissions Kenneth Lalla was forthright in his argument that the rationale for the establishment of an Integrity Commission was precipitated by the fact that persons in public life could not be trusted, hence the requirement for the filing of declarations of their incomes, assets and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and their children.

“According to the purport and intent of the Act, once the person files a declaration of income, assets and liabilities, he is ipso-facto deemed to be a person of integrity,” he said.

“This, however, is a fallacy. Indeed, empirical evidence would show that there is a dearth of persons with integrity in our country and this will be so for a long time.”

Lalla, a member of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, also used the ongoing Uff Commission of Enquiry into UdeCott and the public construction sector as an example.

“The recent debacle by the President in the appointment of members of the IC and the failure on the part of the President or whomsoever to publish in the Gazette the appointment of the UdeCott Commission of Enquiry, whether through gross negligence or otherwise, have clearly exacerbated the reluctance of citizens to avail themselves for appointments to the IC and other State boards,” he said.

The Integrity Commission was installed at President’s House in St Ann’s on May 1, but dissolved ten days later after all five of its members, including chairman Father Henry Charles, resigned for various reasons.

It may have been an unavoidable outcome since several appointees were dogged by controversy, even before members were formally installed, it was later revealed

Retired Appeal Court judge Zainool Hosein, within hours of his appointment blew the whistle and immediately threw the Office of the President into disrepute.

Hosein claimed Richards had promised him the position of chairman.

However, the position was handed to Roman Catholic priest and newspaper columnist Father Henry Charles.

The clergyman also resigned after realising that Canon Law forbade Roman Catholic priests from becoming involved in such commissions.

Charles had also admitted to President Richards that he plagiarised excerpts of an American journal because he was pressed to meet a deadline for one of his newspaper columns. Richards reportedly told him that plagiarism was commonplace in academia.

Many felt that executive director of the National Insurance Board (NIB) Geoffrey Mc Farlane, whom Richards had made deputy chairman, should never have been considered in the first place given his status on several State boards.

He bowed to public pressure and resigned.

The others, retired industrial court judge Gladys Gafoor and university bursar Lylla Bada followed suit.

Richards, who was out of the country on vacation at the time of the resignations, faced severe criticism from several sectors of the society for the collapse of the commission.

And although he apologised for the fiasco on national television, having previously said that to err was human, Richards made it clear that resigning from office was not an option.

Rather, the President insisted that he had not brought his into disrepute and sought to allay fears that the collapse of the commission created a constitutional crisis.

The President, in his address, also declined to speak publicly about discussions that reportedly took place between himself and certain appointees.

“May I say that, as President, I will not put in the public domain, the conversations, of a confidential nature, that I held with anyone concerning the invitations to serve. That, in my view, is unseemly and not befitting the Office,” he said in the address, which was broadcast live on May 29.

Richards suggested that the negative fallout “has given us the opportunity to see that democracy is alive and well in TT.”

Dumas, who had called on Richards to resign after the collapse of the commission, maintains that Richards’ explanations lacked substance.

In his view, the President should have resigned since he was responsible for the appointments.

“The President has to take full responsibility. He cannot escape from that,” Dumas said.

“He needs to spare himself further embarrassment and humiliation and to spare the country a further flouting of the law.”

Dumas said Richards should also demit office since he was also widely perceived to be “under the thumb of the prime minister.”

“So that his reputation is at stake,” he added.

Under the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000, Part 11, the President appoints members to the commission in consultation with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.

Dumas pointed out though, that Richards does not have to accede to the selections of Prime Minister Patrick Manning or Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday.

“Consultation does not mean agreement,” he argued.

During a PNM rally in Mayaro in September, the PM indicated that the Government needed to review the processes for appointing members to the Commission.

“The Integrity Commission is not working and the Government has to go back to the drawing board,” he told supporters.

Dumas agreed.

“The whole thing needs to be reviewed as a watchdog,” he said, adding that previous commissions did not have structures that could have yielded the best results.

Still, politicians, members of civil society organisations and other stakeholders have been calling for the installation of a commission, if only on moral grounds.

Prominent civil rights attorney and Tabaquite MP Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj feels, though, that the process could be under threat.

Maharaj noted in an interview that under the draft working document on constitutional reform, the PM may very well be responsible for the appointments of members to the Integrity Commission.

The former Attorney General said when one looked at the draft working document, one would observe a fundamental shift in the operations of independent State institutions such as the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Elections and Boundaries Commission and the Judiciary.

In the draft working document, Maharaj said, it was envisaged that the prime minister would be the head of both the Government and State.

“Manning would be both prime minister and president and he virtually will choose the Chief Justice, DPP and members of commissions,” he claimed.

Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday contends, though, that the Government may abolish the commission.

“Because they are afraid there would be too much investigation into their affairs...

“If not they would further water it down,” Panday argued.

Dumas said abolishing the commission should not be an option.

“You need a watchdog,” he insisted.

Chairman of the TT Transparency Institute (TTTI) Victor Hart also said the commission played a critical role in the society.

“TT unequivocally supports it. But, we are hearing nothing about what has been going on behind the scenes. That is very disturbing because it is contrary to the requirements of the country’s Constitution,” he said.

“It means in practice that persons who may be accused of any wrongdoing in public office are not being investigated and are being denied the opportunity to have their names cleared or to be held accountable if the investigations so find.

“So, it’s imperative that a working Integrity Commission be put in place without further delay.”

Alluding to the recent passage of the Financial Intelligence Unit Bill in the Parliament, Hart said: “For the bill to be effective it needs to be supported by a functioning IC.”

Hart said the Integrity In Public Life Act needed to be urgently reviewed since it contained many defects.

“But that can only happen if there is proper consultation,” he said.

“Revisions must be based on consultation with relevant stakeholders.”

Hart said TTTI was currently in discussions with a sponsor to host a public stakeholder forum next year to discuss the way forward for the commission.