New watchdog needed

Even before Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley on Monday expressed dismay with the slow workings of the commission, it has been apparent that this body has been too often ensnared in politics, has been unable to efficiently fulfil its constitutional mandate and has in the past conducted itself in a way which has brought itself into disrepute – and in at least one instance a successful lawsuit for misfeasance.

There is need for serious rebranding.

The current commission this week steered well clear of the remarks made by Rowley as he explained his rehiring of Port of Spain South MP Marlene McDonald.

This, for once, was an instance of the commission acting properly: keeping itself out of the daily political grind.

Still, there are too many other complaints. While it is not appropriate for any politician to attack an independent body established by the Constitution, it speaks volumes when a sitting Prime Minister can openly express dissatisfaction with the commission in the way Rowley has done. Rowley is not alone in finding much that is undesirable.

Ironically, however, it is the politicians who have dealt the most damage to this body over decades.

Rowley himself was caught up in a scandal in which he attended a secret meeting with a commission chairman at the chairman’s private residence in the absence of any commission official and while the commission panel was not even fully constituted.

Other politicians have often used the commission as a political toy. The filing of a complaint – and subsequent confirmation of a probe into such – is often used to generate animus against targets. All are entitled to file such complaints, but the dogged insistence to file is not matched with a fervour to give the commission the resources it needs to investigate.

This is another area where politicians have failed. The commission is answerable to no politician, yet the politicians control the size of its purse strings. The Constitution does not provide for this body to have an autonomous source of funding.

The politicians have also been accused of improperly interfering with the commission. The Landate affair and the commission’s role in that matter raised disturbing questions about the proximity of members with then prime minister Patrick Manning, whose rival for PNM leadership for years was Rowley.

To date it has never been explained why the commission wrote Manning on October 19, 2004, signalling its intention to investigate Rowley on Landate. The commission would later admit that it “rushed” the probe and forwarded the file to the DPP without giving Rowley a chance to defend himself.

Police also later found no evidence against Rowley.

Perhaps all of this is par for the course for a body that is supposed to be a watchdog over politicians.

It can hardly be a surprise that politicians would find themselves at both ends of the stick.

However, the most pressing reason why it is time to reconsider the existence of this body is its failure to the public.

The whole point of the commission is to allow disclosure of ties between public officials and business interests. Despite the technology being available, the commission has repeatedly failed to facilitate access to the Register of Interests online. A system of notice/personal appointments to inspect same acts as an effective chill to scrutiny.

Without this vital function, the commission is a complete waste of time.

The PNM has pledged to introduce stiffer penalties for errant MPs. It should review the commission and go full speed ahead with its desire to introduce a better scheme of ethics regulation.