Confusion on integrity

IT WOULD be wrong for any government to suspend the implementation of a law because it did not like the effect such a law would have on certain individuals. The country has now learned that the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 never became fully operative because its prescribed declaration forms were never passed by Parliament. Since this fact was disclosed by ex-chairman of the Integrity Commission Justice Gerard Des Iles more than a week ago, Prime Minister Patrick Manning and his Attorney General Glenda Morean-Phillip have been on the defensive, seeking to refute charges that they knew about the forms which, as our investigations show, were laid first in the House and then, on September 2001, in the Senate. The forms, however, were never approved by Parliament.

The controversy erupted after Justice Des Iles revealed that he had written the Prime Minister three times earlier this year asking him to have the declaration forms, which were ready since September 2001 laid in Parliament as required by the Act. The ex-IC chairman said he received no response from Mr Manning or from his Permanent Secretary to whom he had spoken on the telephone. So far, the PM has failed to comment on this and one can only conclude that his silence and his apparent refusal to respond to Justice Des Iles is an indication of his disapproving attitude toward the Act and the Commission. Mr Manning revealed his thoughts on this issue on Thursday when he said his government was having "second thoughts" about the legislation — which, by the way, his party, while in Opposition, had supported in Parliament. After "mature reflection," he now holds the view that the "net" of persons who must make declarations was cast too wide. This may well account for the government's delay in appointing new commissioners after the term of the first expired in July.

As far as the Attorney General is concerned, the situation seems even more confusing. When Mrs Morean-Phillip insists that the forms were not available for the whole of 2001 and 2002 and that they were only submitted to her office either in January or February this year, she appears to be contradicting both the ex-IC chairman and the fact that they were laid in Parliament in 2001. Who is telling the truth? It is quite disturbing that there should be a conflict between Justice De Isles who is claiming that the forms were available since September 2001 and the AG who is saying that they had been the subject of amendments and had only been "recently approved" by the Commission. Indeed, the AG also appears to be contradicting herself when she categorically denied there was any plan to scrap the Commission after she had informed the Senate on July 5 that the the IC would either be "restructured" or even be replaced by a new body, the Anti-Corruption Commission. On Thursday, Mrs Morean-Phillip made the situation even more befuddling when she said that Cabinet had decided to "beef up" the powers of the Commission in order to "transform" it into the "state institution" charged with the responsibility of leading the national strategy against corruption. But what is this? It now appears that the Government is actually moving to scap the Commission and replace it with a new organism under the same name, one which will require new legislation in any case.

The PM and the AG seem to be playing games with this issue. The motivation and the evidence are there to indicate that they are not really keen on implementing the Act. Our view is that the government never had a choice and, until they are able to change the law, they must respect and promptly and unreservedly implement it, no matter whom it may offend.