Integrity undermined

In February, all members of the Commission resigned after Justice Maureen Rajnauth Lee handed down a stinging judgment which found them to be guilty of misfeasance in public office in respect to the Landate matter involving former Housing Minister Keith Rowley. Although their resignations were exceptional in the context of Trinidad and Tobago’s political culture, the commissioners received only faint praise for their act, because this was the fourth court judgment which had gone against them and because there had long been other matters raised in which the Commission’s independence was called into question.

In this context, the debate in Parliament begins with a perception of bad faith on the part of Government. The motion before the House is intended to amend the Act to give the Commission wider powers to receive and investigate complaints; authorise the exclusion of income, assets and liabilities under $10,000; and increase the period required for the declaration of assets. Much of this may seem standard legislative fare, but various administrations have been known to attempt to sneak in legal loopholes and oppressive clauses within apparently innocuous Bills. And the present regime does not appear committed to integrity in public life, despite all its rhetoric to the contrary.

After all, were there a sitting Integrity Commission, there is no doubt that a file on the Finance Minister would already have been sent to it. Yet the Prime Minister has declared his unequivocal support for Ms Karen Nunez-Tesheira, while all her PNM colleagues cheered their support for her when she made an indefensible defence of her CL Financial transactions in the Lower House two Fridays ago. In piloting this Bill, therefore, the Government finds itself living in a glass house while citizens rightfully pelt stones. Additionally, the debate has commenced without a word from either government or the President’s House about the status of new commissioners.

We would have thought that such an update would already have been provided to citizens, even if to say that the process has not commenced and to give reasons why. After all, integrity is a prime issue in citizen’s minds, given the ongoing Uff Commission of Inquiry, the CL Financial debacle, and now this debate itself.

If the authorities thus seem to be delaying the appointment of new commissioners, people will soon come to see this as an underhanded way of bypassing the Constitution, which categorically states in Section 138 (1) “There shall be an Integrity Commission for Trinidad and Tobago”. In other words, the absence of such a Commission is technically equivalent to there being no Parliament, since this is equally a Constitutional requirement.

We realise, of course, that such appointments cannot be rushed, especially in light of the fact that the President’s previous Commission members have not met the high requirements of the office. But it would be wise for the authorities to keep the public updated on this matter, for integrity in public life has been undermined enough in recent times.