Why the secrecy?

The PNM government has been attempting for several months now to undermine the FOIA. It has brought legislation to exempt the Unit Trust Corporation, the Agricultural Development Bank, First Citizens Bank, and the Central Bank. This last exemption was especially egregious, since it was done in response to the Maha Sabha filing a motion to discover why Professor Selwyn Cudjoe, a literature professor, was given a place on the Bank’s board.

The Government has given all kinds of reasons for exempting certain organisations from the FOIA, none of which hold water. The Act is so constructed that an application may be refused if the applicant’s reasons are considered malicious or "maccocious" by the relevant authority. Additionally, the Manning administration’s desire to add exemptions to the Act just shows the double standards of politicians, since the PNM, when in Opposition, argued that the FOIA should have fewer exemptions than the original legislation proposed by the UNC government.

The fact is, politicians usually have just one overriding reason for wishing to conceal information from the general public — to hide issues which would make them look bad. Sometimes those issues may be merely embarrassing, sometimes they may involve actual wrong-doing. Whichever it is, the PNM administration’s insistence on pushing through these exemptions contradicts the party’s stated commitment to transparency in public affairs.

It is therefore unfortunate that some Independent senators should support this effort, although others in the debate on Tuesday opposed the legislation. This is because the Independent Senators are expected to set a higher ethical standard than the Government or Opposition MPs. So when one Senator declares herself upset at having to declare her assets to the Integrity Commission, the public’s natural reaction is to ask what she has to hide. This is especially the case when, as Senator Dana Seetahal pointed out, the Integrity Act already has confidentiality clauses so there is no need to exempt the entire Integrity Commission. Ms Seetahal was supported by Independent Senator Ken Ramchand, who asked, "Under the Integrity Act, secrecy is well protected, so what’s the point of the Order?"

Indeed, the question might go even further, and ask whether the Integrity Commission has too much secrecy. In more advanced democracies, the declarations of assets made by government officials are often open to citizens on request. This is because, in those countries, the view is that people who wish to take part in public life should be open to public scrutiny. This, it seems, is a lesson that most of our MPs have yet to learn.

Our parliamentary system is so made that the Government will be able to push through these exemptions no matter what objections the Opposition or some Independent Senators raise. In so doing, however, they will surely set back the democracy which our society is trying to build. In this project, the Independent Senators should realise that they have an even greater responsibility than the other Mps.