Taking a cue from Comey

It was an example of a legislative committee system at work and an indication of how effective such a system can be as a check over executive power.

For sure, such checks are essential in any democracy, no matter how well-intentioned its officials.

For while the judicial branch of governance can hold leaders to account, that system is limited by the strictures of legal interpretation, high evidence thresholds and procedural restraints that affect accessibility. Committees on the other hand, at least in theory, have powers to summon and can hear evidence in a more fluid manner.

This is why one of the biggest threats facing the administration of US president Donald Trump is the fact that a plethora of committees are probing his election campaign’s ties with Russia. The White House is being investigated by the House intelligence committee, the House oversight committee and the Senate intelligence committee, before which Comey testified last week.

Trump also faces a probe by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Comey’s widely broadcast testimony, and the commensurate attention paid to it, was an example of the committee system at work.

It allowed the sacked FBI director a forum to air his concerns over the honesty of the US president and to recall, in meticulous detail, the facts surrounding allegations of obstruction of justice involving Trump. These are details that will be of utmost importance to American voters in future elections.

They also shed important light on Trump’s character, something that is key for America’s allies who stand to lose much if Trump’s presidency continues on its current path. He has already caused damage in areas such as intelligence sharing, cooperation of climate change and political stability in the Middle East.

In sharp contrast to last week’s hearing on Capitol Hill was the recent hearing of our own Parliament’s Joint Select Committee (JSC) into State Enterprises, chaired by Independent Senator David Small.

On June 5, Senator Small complained bitterly over the failure of key figures at the Education Facilities Company Limited to testify before him. Noting that only one board member had turned up to the hearing, Small said, “They could run but they can’t hide! We will not be tolerating this level of disrespect!” Yet the Senator will have worse to tolerate. The hearing came as key board members resigned, subverting – whether inadvertently or not – the business of the committee.

These company officials lost a chance to clear their names and demonstrate their integrity. They also lost also an opportunity to assure the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago that allegations of mismanagement, corruption and bid rigging at EFCL are untrue.

The fact remains that while Parliament committees have powers to summon officials and documents, the degree of compliance with directives is easily subverted by the musical chairs that occur at the highest levels of State enterprises such as EFCL.

And the problem relates not only to State enterprises but also to the public sector as a whole. The most common excuse that is heard at the International Waterfront Centre when public servants testify relates to staff changes, whether through changed Government administrations or retirement practices.

We welcome Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s assurance last Friday that an audit report into EFCL will be “made available” in future.

We also acknowledge the strides that have been made by our committee system, in both the Tenth Parliament and continuing into the Eleventh. But we warn that there needs to be greater commitment to the committee system. And former officials should take a cue from Comey and also make themselves available to give evidence.