Afra Raymond is interviewed on the ‘95 Mandate‘ show on i95.5FM with Ardene Sirjoo and Mariano Browne about the continuing impact of the CL Financial bailout on the economy and the pending Colman Commission report. 6 February 2015. Audio courtesy i95.5FM
The Integrity Commission is continuing its efforts to revise the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) to give greater effect to its anti-corruption work. I fully support those efforts.
The key challenge is to discern how Public Officials commit the corrupt acts the Commission is meant to reduce. It is therefore necessary to conduct a scrupulous examination of Commissions of Enquiry and other Inquiry (eg LifeSport) Reports & evidence; Auditor General’s Annual Reports; as well as the leading international learning on these questions.
Once the main methods of corrupt agents are discerned, it will then be necessary to consider how the existing powers of the Commission might be deployed in tackling those and if there are new powers needed.
‘Public Money’ is the term used to describe money due to or payable by the State, including those sums for which the State would be ultimately liable in the event of a default. Public Money is sometimes called Taxpayers’ Money. It is our Money. The leading learning from which we have drawn serious lessons in the campaign for Public Procurement reform is Lord Sharman’s 2001 Report to the British Parliament – Holding to Account – which was a thorough examination of the definition, role and need for control of ‘Public Money.’ We expanded on Sharman’s definition of ‘Public Money‘ so as to capture the full range of possibilities, but we have accepted his key finding as to the requirement that ‘Public Money‘ is to be managed to a higher standard of Accountability and Transparency than Private Money. The contemporary, best-practice position in respect of the management of and accountability for Public Money being that the private sector rules are the bare minimum. That position must be at the centre of any reform of the IPLA and should be enshrined in law.
The IPLA effectively contains two limbs – the first requires that Public Officials make declarations of their income, assets and liabilities and the second requires those officials to perform their duties in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct’ as set out in Part IV. The majority of cases brought by or Notices from the IC are directed at Public Officials who fail to make proper declarations. Is there a single case in which breaches of the ‘Code of Conduct’ were cited in making a case or an adverse finding? It is in this failure or refusal to apply those IPLA provisions that much of the current mischief in our Public Affairs is left to flourish. Some of the largest State Enterprises are functioning in breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’ and as such the Public Officials running those bodies are liable to censure. The IPLA does not contain any penalties for breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’, so that needs to be rectified. I support the Commission’s proposals to make examination of declarations optional, as that shift would release resources for a greater focus on the ‘Code of Conduct’.
S.36 (1) of the IPLA states –
“36. (1) A person in public life or a person exercising a public function may, by application in writing, request the Commission to give an opinion and make recommendations on any matter respecting his own obligations under this Act.”
The key flaw with this power is that it is limited to cases in which the Public Official first requests an investigation and what is more, the Commission can only release its findings/recommendations with the consent of that Official. That power must be extended to all cases, with the discretion as to publication of its findings/recommendations left to the Commission. The fundamental importance of the Public Interest should not be subordinated to the agenda of obstructive Public Officials. A good example of how those powers were used recently in a positive way was the Commission’s 12 September 2014 Report on the Ministry of the Environment & Water Resources with relation to issues of alleged improper conduct in relation to the grant of Saw-Millers Licences.
At present, the Commission notifies Public Officials who are being investigated. It seems counter-productive, to say the least, that the same Public Officials who are in charge of the papers which could prove their guilt are being notified by the Commission at the start of investigations. Little wonder that the Commission has had little impact on corruption. It is emblematic of the flagrant double-standards with respect to the detection and prosecution of ‘White Collar Crime’. One can hardly imagine the courtesy of ‘prior notice’ being extended to suspected rapists or murderers. The Commission needs to eliminate that practice of notifying persons to be investigated.
The Commission’s findings and recommendations must be effectively linked with other ‘gatekeeper’ regulators – eg ‘Fit & Proper’ regulations as controlled by the Central Bank, Professional bodies, T&T Securities and Exchange Commission and the Stock Exchange. The linkages need to be backward and forward, so that the Public Interest can be upheld by better-informed regulatory bodies. I have seen notices of penalties imposed by the TTSEC in relation to various Public Bodies which have issued bonds and failed to provide timely accounts. If the TTSEC fines were paid, it would have been out of Public Money, so there would be no personal cost to those Directors for their lawbreaking. Those findings would seem to constitute a breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’, but was the Commission formally notified? – examples are in the sidebar.
The SEC has made Orders in respect of Contraventions of the Securities Industry Act 1995 and the Securities Industry Bye-Laws 1997. Those Orders are in relation to the failure of these huge State-owned Enterprises to publish their accounts –
Some of the largest State Enterprises and Statutory Bodies are operating in breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’ in the IPLA, which requires at S.24 (3) that –
“(3) No person to whom this Part applies shall be a party to or shall undertake any project or activity involving the use of public funds in disregard of the Financial Orders or other Regulations applicable to such funds.”
At this time, there are no audited accounts for Caribbean Airlines Ltd (since 2008) or UDECOTT (since 2005) or Housing Development Corporation (since its inception in 2005). That is very serious since some of the largest State Enterprises and Statutory Bodies are refusing or failing to publish audited accounts as required by the published guidelines of the Ministry of Finance or their own statutes.
The declarations of Public Officials must also be linked to the Inland Revenue and Financial Intelligence Unit, so that they can be reconciled. With today’s information technology, that is no great task.
The October 2007 High Court ruling that members of the Judiciary were exempt from the provisions of the IPLA needs to be urgently revisited. The fact is that the Judiciary has an immense amount of power and discretion which at present is being exercised outside of the framework which binds other Public Officials. It is true that judicial decisions are subject to review, but the appearance of a beneficial exemption from the Integrity Framework does not inspire confidence.
The G20 countries recently agreed to start moves against secret shareholdings and nominee Directors. The effect of those proposed changes would be to effectively embargo Nominee Directors, Unissued shares and other ‘masking devices’ which are intended to conceal the ‘Ultimate Beneficial Owner’ of a company. Our Integrity laws need to reflect those practices.
The IPLA needs to restate the position that all Directors of State Enterprises and bodies under the control of the State are liable to its provisions. Of course, that would include the gigantic CL Financial.
It is critical that we get these issues right, there is no room for compromise here.
The public is being told that the CL Financial bailout is being resolved, while at the same time the Minister of Finance & the Economy is withholding the fundamental information which any prudent person would need to make a decision. So, what is the secret?
Apart from the details I have been asking for, there are other questions which occur to me –
The original complaint is here –
Clause 3.1. of the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement of 12th June 2009 – see https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mou21.pdf – specifies that the Board of Directors of CLF shall consist of seven Directors, four of which shall be nominated by the Government. The GORTT has a controlling interest and it is public knowledge that the GORTT has exercised those rights, amounting to strong influence evidencing control.
It seems clear that the directors of CL Financial Ltd are therefore persons who should file declarations, and therefore also the directors of subsidiaries under their influence and control, but having visited your offices earlier today to examine the Register of Interests it seems that these Directors have not been filing returns with you.
For your information, your staff confirmed to me today that none of these people have filed declarations or been required to file such for 2009, 2010 or 2011 –
I am therefore requesting, in the public interest, your confirmation that Directors of CL Financial and the companies within its control are required to file declarations or your confirmation that those Directors are not required to file or such other informative response that will satisfy this complaint of apparent non-compliance.
I await your early reply.
Yours faithfully,
Afra Raymond
B.Sc. FRICS
There is an interesting nexus between the Integrity in Public Life Act (2000) and the CLF bailout.
The Act obliges that public officials make a declaration of their income, assets, liabilities and interests to the Integrity Commission on or before 31 May of each year. There are penalties for non-compliance. We have seen high-profile investigations and prosecutions with the proposed amendments to the Act now being debated in the Senate.
The Integrity Commission website lists ten classes of persons in public life who must file declarations with them. That list can be found at http://www.integritycommission.org.tt/whofile.html. The ninth class of person is “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.”
CL Financial has already signed over its shareholdings in Republic Bank Ltd. (55%) and Methanol Holdings Trinidad Ltd (56%) to the State under the MoU, and the State has taken complete control of CLICO. Will CLICO, MHTL and Republic Bank Directors be filing returns on or before 31 May?
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2014 09:56 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Fwd: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
Dear Mr. Farrell,
I am seeking an update from you on your progress in relation to this formal report made to the Integrity Commission on 10th September 2012.
Apart from a brief telephone conversation we had a few days after its submission, I have had neither acknowledgment or reply to this report.
I await your early reply.
Regards
Afra Raymond
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:
Dear Mr Raymond
Our recollection in the office is that a response was sent to you and we are examining our records.
In any case, a response will be sent to you.
Registrar
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com> wrote:Hello Mr. Farrell,
I appreciate your early attention to my query.
Regards
Afra Raymond
From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: “Registrar, Integrity Commission” <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt>
Hello Mr. Farrell,
I wrote to you on 20th March 2014 seeking an update to my formal report of 10th September 2012 to the Integrity Commission on this matter. You replied the next day indicating that you thought that a reply had already been sent but that in any case a reply would be sent to me.
To date I have had no response to my formal complaint or the request for an update as to its status. In the interim, I have carefully examined the Commission’s 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports and found no mention of my complaint in the sections which provide an outline of the various investigations being undertaken. According to those Reports, the status of those investigations seem to fall into three categories – ‘Closed’ – denoting those matters which have been effectively dismissed, due to lack of evidence or irrelevance; ‘Completed’ – denoting those matters which have been investigated or ‘Continuing’ for those matters which are still under investigation. I am starting to wonder if my formal complaint has been relegated to some new, as yet undisclosed, category.
I am also going to point out that, according to the Integrity Commission’s Public Notice at pg 49 of the Sunday Express of 6th October 2013, the Integrity in Public Life Act applies to State Enterprises. At the fourth para of that Public Notice, which was intended to clarify published concerns as to the implications of the Appeal Court ruling in #30 of 2008, you state that State Enterprises are companies which are controlled by the State, so I would again invite your attention to the particulars of my original complaint in this matter. As you would appreciate from my published analysis, the position taken by the Commission in that Public Notice is one with which I strongly disagree, nonetheless, that position is the Integrity Commission’s formal statement on the matter.
For ease of reference, that Public Notice is here –
https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ic-response2013.pdf – since I was unable to locate it on the Commission’s website.
I am closing by pointing out that this is a matter of the gravest possible public concern, since CL Financial has been the recipient of over $25 Billion TTD in Public Money and its affairs remain shrouded in an intentional obscurity which does violence to the modern notions of Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance. That obscurity includes the channelling of those huge sums of Public Money via the Central Bank which is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; new laws to approve the exemption of the Central Bank from any judicial review of its actions in this matter (that has now been ruled as unconstitutional by the High Court in #4383 of 2012, of course the State has appealed that, so the fight is on); the failure/refusal of CL Financial to publish audited accounts and the failure/refusal of CL Financial’s Directors to comply with the Integrity in Public Life Act.
That is the factual background against which I lodged my formal complaint. The delay and ambiguity with which the Integrity Commission appears to be treating my complaint on this most serious matter is sobering, to say the least.
I trust that you can give this matter your early attention, in the meantime, I will be publishing this as a record of these developments.
Afra Raymond
|
May 22 | ||
|
|||
Dear Mr. Raymond
On behalf of Mr. Farrell I do apologize for not responding to your query. Please note that your query was not classified as a compliant so you would not find it in the complaints section of the 2012 or 2013 Annual Report. With respect to your query we have sought and obtained legal advice. However the Commission is not properly constituted ( a Commissioner having resigned and not yet replaced by his Excellency the President) at this time and therefore cannot make decisions. As soon as the Commission becomes properly constituted the matter will be placed before the Commission for a decision.
In the interim I would appreciate if you can provide us with a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement.
Yours respectfully
Lisa Phillips
Acting Registrar
Integrity Commission
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2014 05:12 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity inPublicLife Act
Hello Ms. Phillips,
I thank you for your swift reply and trust that this matter can now receive proper attention.
The Ministry of Finance made a Press Release on 12th June 2009 -http://www.afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/minoffin_pr_12jun2009.pdf – which I received prior to the actual Shareholders Agreement being released to me pursuant to my Freedom of Information request. As requested, the actual CL Financial Shareholders Agreement of 12th June 2009 is here – https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mou21.pdf – for your consideration.
I await your reply.
Afra Raymond
On Friday, May 23, 2014, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:
Dear Mr. Raymond
Thanks for your understanding. However used the link provided but most of the pages of the Agreement are blank.
Regards
Lisa Phillips
Acting Registrar
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 09:06 AM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in PublicLife Act
Hello Ms. Phillips,
The Shareholders’ Agreement is showing ok at my end, the scanned copy I was sent seemed a little faded, that was all.
The link I sent you yesterday was included in my original email of 10th September 2012, so it’s not clear whether that actually received proper attention.
I suppose that the Finance Ministry would provide a copy if you asked, seeing that they sent it to me.
Thank You
Afra Raymond
Registrar, Integrity Commission May 23
to me
Mr. Raymond
Noted. Thanks
Lisa
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2014 09:56 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Fwd: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity inPublic Life Act
Dear Mr. Farrell,
I am seeking an update from you on your progress in relation to this formal report made to the Integrity Commission on 10th September 2012.
Apart from a brief telephone conversation we had a few days after its submission, I have had neither acknowledgment or reply to this report.
I await your early reply.
Regards
Afra Raymond
http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com
==================================================================================
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:
Dear Mr Raymond
Our recollection in the office is that a response was sent to you and we are examining our records.
In any case, a response will be sent to you.
Registrar
===================================================================================
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Farrell,
I appreciate your early attention to my query.
Regards
Afra Raymond
===================================================================================
From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: “Registrar, Integrity Commission” <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt>
Hello Mr. Farrell,
I wrote to you on 20th March 2014 seeking an update to my formal report of 10th September 2012 to the Integrity Commission on this matter. You replied the next day indicating that you thought that a reply had already been sent but that in any case a reply would be sent to me.
To date I have had no response to my formal complaint or the request for an update as to its status. In the interim, I have carefully examined the Commission’s 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports and found no mention of my complaint in the sections which provide an outline of the various investigations being undertaken. According to those Reports, the status of those investigations seem to fall into three categories – ‘Closed’ – denoting those matters which have been effectively dismissed, due to lack of evidence or irrelevance; ‘Completed’ – denoting those matters which have been investigated or ‘Continuing’ for those matters which are still under investigation. I am starting to wonder if my formal complaint has been relegated to some new, as yet undisclosed, category.
I am also going to point out that, according to the Integrity Commission’s Public Notice at pg 49 of the Sunday Express of 6th October 2013, the Integrity in Public Life Act applies to State Enterprises. At the fourth para of that Public Notice, which was intended to clarify published concerns as to the implications of the Appeal Court ruling in #30 of 2008, you state that State Enterprises are companies which are controlled by the State, so I would again invite your attention to the particulars of my original complaint in this matter. As you would appreciate from my published analysis, the position taken by the Commission in that Public Notice is one with which I strongly disagree, nonetheless, that position is the Integrity Commission’s formal statement on the matter.
For ease of reference, that Public Notice is here –
https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ic-response2013.pdf – since I was unable to locate it on the Commission’s website.
I am closing by pointing out that this is a matter of the gravest possible public concern, since CL Financial has been the recipient of over $25 Billion TTD in Public Money and its affairs remain shrouded in an intentional obscurity which does violence to the modern notions of Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance. That obscurity includes the channelling of those huge sums of Public Money via the Central Bank which is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; new laws to approve the exemption of the Central Bank from any judicial review of its actions in this matter (that has now been ruled as unconstitutional by the High Court in #4383 of 2012, of course the State has appealed that, so the fight is on); the failure/refusal of CL Financial to publish audited accounts and the failure/refusal of CL Financial’s Directors to comply with the Integrity in Public Life Act.
That is the factual background against which I lodged my formal complaint. The delay and ambiguity with which the Integrity Commission appears to be treating my complaint on this most serious matter is sobering, to say the least.
I trust that you can give this matter your early attention, in the meantime, I will be publishing this as a record of these developments.
Afra Raymond
http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com
===================================================================================
|
May 22 | ||
|
|||
Dear Mr. Raymond
On behalf of Mr. Farrell I do apologize for not responding to your query. Please note that your query was not classified as a compliant so you would not find it in the complaints section of the 2012 or 2013 Annual Report. With respect to your query we have sought and obtained legal advice. However the Commission is not properly constituted ( a Commissioner having resigned and not yet replaced by his Excellency the President) at this time and therefore cannot make decisions. As soon as the Commission becomes properly constituted the matter will be placed before the Commission for a decision.
In the interim I would appreciate if you can provide us with a copy of the CL Financial Shareholders Agreement.
Yours respectfully
Lisa Phillips
Acting Registrar
Integrity Commission
===================================================================================
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 May 2014 05:12 PM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity inPublicLife Act
Hello Ms. Phillips,
I thank you for your swift reply and trust that this matter can now receive proper attention.
The Ministry of Finance made a Press Release on 12th June 2009 -http://www.afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/minoffin_pr_12jun2009.pdf – which I received prior to the actual Shareholders Agreement being released to me pursuant to my Freedom of Information request. As requested, the actual CL Financial Shareholders Agreement of 12th June 2009 is here – https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mou21.pdf – for your consideration.
I await your reply.
Afra Raymond
http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com
===================================================================================
On Friday, May 23, 2014, Registrar, Integrity Commission <Registrar@integritycommission.org.tt> wrote:
Dear Mr. Raymond
Thanks for your understanding. However used the link provided but most of the pages of the Agreement are blank.
Regards
Lisa Phillips
Acting Registrar
===================================================================================
From: Afra Raymond [mailto:afraraymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014 09:06 AM
To: Registrar, Integrity Commission
Subject: Re: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in PublicLife Act
Hello Ms. Phillips,
The Shareholders’ Agreement is showing ok at my end, the scanned copy I was sent seemed a little faded, that was all.
The link I sent you yesterday was included in my original email of 10th September 2012, so it’s not clear whether that actually received proper attention.
I suppose that the Finance Ministry would provide a copy if you asked, seeing that they sent it to me.
Thank You
Afra Raymond
http://www.afraraymond.wordpress.com
===================================================================================
Registrar, Integrity Commission May 23
to me
Mr. Raymond
Noted. Thanks
Lisa
The original complaint is here –
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Afra Raymond <afraraymond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Compliance of CL Financial Directors with the Integrity in Public Life Act
To: registrar@integritycommission.org.tt
To – Mr. Martin Farrell, Registrar of the Integrity Commission
Dear Sir,
The Integrity in Public Life Act requires that “Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest” are required to file returns and declare interests with the Integrity Commission.
Clause 3.1. of the CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement of 12th June 2009 – see https://afraraymond.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mou21.pdf – specifies that the Board of Directors of CLF shall consist of seven Directors, four of which shall be nominated by the Government. The GORTT has a controlling interest and it is public knowledge that the GORTT has exercised those rights, amounting to strong influence evidencing control.
It seems clear that the directors of CL Financial Ltd are therefore persons who should file declarations, and therefore also the directors of subsidiaries under their influence and control, but having visited your offices earlier today to examine the Register of Interests it seems that these Directors have not been filing returns with you.
For your information, your staff confirmed to me today that none of these people have filed declarations or been required to file such for 2009, 2010 or 2011 –
Gerald Yet Ming (CLF’s current Chairman)
Hayden Charles (CLICO Director)
Ronald Harford (Republic Bank’s Chairman)
Dr Euric Bobb (former CLF Chairman)
Rampersad Motilal (Managing Director of Methanol Holdings Limited)
I am therefore requesting, in the public interest, your confirmation that Directors of CL Financial and the companies within its control are required to file declarations or your confirmation that those Directors are not required to file or such other informative response that will satisfy this complaint of apparent non-compliance.
I await your early reply.
Yours faithfully,
Afra Raymond
B.Sc. FRICS
Our country continues its perpetual grappling with the question of conduct in public office, but at this time we are faced with particular threats and opportunities in respect of the Public Interest.
Before getting to the present particulars, some critical facts and concepts must be stated. Trinidad & Tobago is a leading nation in the Caribbean region, so progress made here will be to the wider benefit of the region. That said, the particular shape of our economy is such that the State is easily the dominant player in the country’s commercial affairs. Given that reality, the question of illegal or improper conduct by the State and its Agencies, goes far beyond principled assertions. The State must be exemplary in its conduct, not just because that is a principled position, but because its regular misconduct and illegality will continue to distort the behaviour of non-State players.
The size and wealth of the State makes its control and oversight a continuing and seemingly-insurmountable task. Like the old proverb – ”…Where does an Elephant sit? Wherever it wants to…” It is essential that the State be subject to ongoing and timely oversight, so as to preserve the society’s stability and progressive development.
The State’s power emanates from its unique legal powers and the fact that it has more money than any other element of the society.
These two streams of power work together in a special relationship to which we must be most alert. We rely on the State to seek our collective interests, so we have a special duty to be most vigilant as to its operations.
That is the background against which the current threats and challenges must be viewed.
The main element driving the episodes of State misconduct and illegality is the ability to transact in Public Money, which is money due to or payable by the State, to include any money for which the State will be ultimately liable in the event of a default. Public Officials transact in Public Money, on our behalf. Those Officials are defined in the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) – that list includes politicians, Permanent Secretaries and Board members of State Enterprises, Statutory Bodies performing a public function and bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.
Public Money must be managed to a higher standard of accountability and transparency than Private Money, because it is raised by coercion (taxation) and mostly spent in a manner which does not allow for real competition. Residents and companies are therefore obliged to pay taxes and consume public services with no real choice, hence our entitlement to that higher standard of accountability from the State in the delivery of public services.
Our country’s Integrity Framework is outlined in the sidebar.
Our Republic’s Public Bodies and their officials act on our collective behalf, so it is fundamental that those operations are under the oversight of a series of legal requirements to ensure their proper functioning. I have called that series of arrangements and legal requirements, The Integrity Framework.
Our country’s Integrity Framework comprises these basic elements –
Obviously, those bodies which are part of the Integrity Framework are performing important public functions, so it is ironic that those bodies are not always accountable in the same way that the others are. For instance, the members of the Integrity Commission do not have to declare their assets, income & liabilities as do other Public Officials. Also, as a result of a 2007 High Court ruling the Judiciary do not have to provide declarations to the Integrity Commission.
The triple threat we face at this time is –
All three of these positions effectively undermine the country’s Integrity Framework and all three are endorsed by our Appeal Court. The three, taken together, taste terrible.
The impending and long-awaited Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Bill, the continuing convulsions at the Integrity Commission and the deep hostility to the truth at the highest levels of our country’s rulers are the main elements which require our utmost vigilance at this time.
The Public needs to be on alert to the detrimental effect of these rulings. The Judiciary is now challenged to act in the Public Interest in these testing times.
The thing must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
The sheer pace of events surrounding the Integrity Commission and the startling series of revelations demand our attention, given the critical role of the Commission as the State’s principal anti-corruption agency.
The rising tide of corruption in our public affairs has been a constant, whichever political administration is in office, seemingly increasing since the IC was established in 1987. Two general observations emerge from that – we certainly need a respected, effective agency to tackle corruption in our public affairs, so we therefore need to look soberly at how the IC can be improved. I repeat that the Commission’s 2012 Annual Report contains serious proposals to improve its effectiveness.
My reading of these recent events is that there are two fundamental issues arising. Continue reading “Integrity Omission?”
Having completed my four-part series [1, 2 & 3, 4] on what I termed ‘The Integrity Threat‘, I was intrigued by two recent public notices on the meaning of the Appeal Court’s recent activity on these matters.
Having written four critical articles consequent on the Appeal Court’s 27th June 2013 ruling and having been preceded by two leading commentators — Andre Bagoo & Anthony Wilson — I was intrigued by this Public Notice published at p. 49 of the Sunday Express of 6 October 2013.
It does not mention any particular articles and purports to clarify the ruling. I will be continuing this examination in my reply.
I am fully in support of a vigorous and conscientious Integrity Commission (IC). I do not want to see the IC abolished or sidelined. The IC must realign its limited resources to ensure a decisive impact on the conduct of Public Officials. The proposals contained in its 2012 Annual Report show clearly that the Gordon Commission has started to seriously grapple with that challenge.
The derailment of the IC between 2004 and 2009 is a clear example of what can happen to an Independent Commission if we do not maintain vigilant oversight.
This matter is of the greatest interest for those of us campaigning for Public Procurement reform so as to get effective control over all transactions in Public Money. The arrangements we are proposing include new Independent Commissions/Officeholders. It is therefore critical that we learn the lessons from this debacle so as to safeguard the bodies we are proposing. The stakes are very high for our nation’s Integrity Framework, which must be strengthened, with swifter resolution of allegations.
To continue in the current manner is to drag the system into further disrepute, encourage even more bold-faced thieves, more reckless public officials and we can expect complete loss of the residual respect for the post-independence civilization we have tried to grow. That would be an ugly and violent future for our society, so this episode requires stern and conscientious examination. Continue reading “Integrity Threat – Part 4”
The previous column discussed the Appeal Court judgment in #30 of 2008, in which both TSTT and the Integrity Commission sought to challenge the High Court ruling in #1735 of 2005. That High Court ruling found that the phrase contained at para 9 of the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) was to be taken ‘as read’ to define those people who are subject to its provisions –
The Appeal Court – comprising CJ Archie, together with Mendonca JA and Smith JA – ruled that –
“CONCLUSION
- TSTT is not a State Enterprise. The members of its Board are not subject to the Integrity Provisions.
- It is only the members of the Boards of those Statutory Bodies which exercise public functions that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.“ Continue reading “Integrity Threat: Part 2 & 3”
AfraRaymond.net 