This column sets out my reasons for seriously questioning the motivation and priorities of the Integrity Commission. Despite my doubts as to the way in which successive Commissions have operated the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA), I have continued to offer suggestions as to how their work could be made more effective.
The continuing Code of Silence on the CL Financial bailout, the sharp attack, from many quarters, on our substantial national institutions and the very doubtful history of the Integrity Commission are clear signs that the Public Interest needs to be safeguarded with utmost vigilance at this time.
TIMELINE – these points are detailed in here.
- 28 May 2009 – I pointed-out in ‘Judgment Time – Moral Hazard, Part III‘ that there was a link between the control the State was now exerting on the CLF group and the requirements of the IPLA.
- 12 June 2009 – CL Financial Shareholders Agreement is signed – clause 3.1 of which gave the Government the right to nominate four of the seven CL Financial Directors.
- 10 September 2012 – I formally wrote to the Integrity Commission with my concerns that the requirements of the IPLA are apparently being disregarded since CLF Directors were not filing declarations. The main document supporting that submission was the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement of June 2009.
- 20 March 2014 – I wrote to the Commission to request its update.
- 21 March 2014 – The Commission states that a reply was either sent or would be sent.
- 22 May 2014 – I wrote at length to the Commission to record my concern at their delay and ambiguity in dealing with my original complaint. The Commission’s Annual Reports contain details of how complaints are disposed of, but the 2012 and 2013 editions had no mention of my complaint.
- 22 May 2014 – The Commission replied to explain that my concerns had been classified as a query, not a complaint. In addition, the Commission stated that “…With respect to your query we have sought and obtained legal advice…” but that they were unable to proceed further due to the fact that they did not have the full number of members. To my astonishment, the Commission also requested a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement which had been attached to my original complaint. If the Commission did not have that fundamental document, which is available online at my blog, this request raised the question of ‘Just what were the instructions to the lawyer from whom advice obtained?’ I submitted the requested document the same day. The second issue arising from the Commission’s statement that it had sought legal advice, is the extent to which it appears to have lost sight of its proper ‘watchdog’ role. My point being that the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement was announced by the Ministry of Finance in June 2009, yet it was not until my complaint of September 2012 that legal advice was sought as to its implications for CLF Directors.
- 23 May 2014 – The Commission wrote to acknowledge receipt.
- 25 September 2014 – Pete London was appointed as the ‘Chartered Accountant’ member of the Commission, which means that the full number of members is now in place.
In relation to the Commission’s history, we need to note the shocking details unearthed during Dr Keith Rowley’s litigation against them. The Commission had made certain findings without giving Rowley the opportunity to respond, as recommended by its advisers and in 2009 the High Court made an historic finding that
“…The Court declares that the Integrity Commission has acted in bad faith in relation to Dr. Rowley and is guilty of the tort of misfeasance in public office…”
At Para 45 (i) of the 2009 ruling –
“…The Court does not accept the Integrity Commission’s explanation as to why it wrote to the Honourable Prime Minister on the 19th October, 2004, to ascertain whether an inquiry was to be undertaken and if so, the names of the persons to man the enquiry and their terms of reference. The Court notes that the Integrity Commission is an independent constitutional body which ought to act independently pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers and duties…”
The entire Commission resigned immediately as a result of that High Court ruling.
The Commission’s independence was fatally undermined by its decision to write to then Prime Minister, Patrick Manning, to seek his instructions on how the complaint against Dr Rowley was to be handled. At that time, the Commission was chaired by Gordon Deane, with John Martin serving as its Deputy Chairman.
The fateful and ultimately fatal compromises made by the Commission were only forced into the open by Dr Rowley’s litigation. Had Rowley not sued, we would likely never have learned of this betrayal.
This is the single largest expenditure ever undertaken on a project in our country, the reported sums are upward of $25 Billion, and the State is in control of the group of companies receiving those huge sums of Public Money.
The State has failed and/or refused to provide details of those huge sums of Public Money, no audited accounts and no other details have been provided in reply to my Freedom of Information requests. I am now litigating that failure or refusal in the High Court.
Some years ago, one of my few lawyer-friends told me of an old ‘coping mechanism’ – ‘Sometimes you get a case which is so wretched…the facts and the law are against your client, so the only thing to do is to hold on for dear life and dance it out by the sheer effluxion of time‘. For whatever reason, that phrase occurred to me in relation to this matter.
My original complaint to the Integrity Commission was made well over two years ago. The sobering conclusion, to my mind, is that the inaction of the Commission in this matter is entirely coincident with the secretive conduct of the State. Hence my title, Integrity Reflections – are we seeing a reflection of the Integrity Commission’s deplorable past?