The announcement by the government of the appointment of former judge, Mr Winston Moore as Ombudsman is most welcome. In societies like this one, rife with a panopoly of concerns about injustices by officialdom against those marginally able to represent themselves, it is vital that there be an Ombudsman to inquire into such claims and pursue relief on behalf of the aggrieved. Mr Moore’s appointment will be well-received across all divides on the basis of his public roles.
This long-awaited appointment does not efface the stain on the government for so flagrantly disregarding this important constitutional office. The abandonment of it following the departure of Justice S Y Mohammed in 2005 – at the height of the Jagdeo administration – was an early signal of the then President’s and his government’s inveterate disregard for the institutional checks and balances that fledgling democracies rely on to even the chances for the ordinary person and to cultivate accountability among government officials. It has taken the Ramotar administration two years to right this egregious wrong.
While this newspaper has full confidence in the ability of Justice Moore to execute the task he has been entrusted with, it is far less certain of whether he will have the wherewithal to achieve his objectives. Aside from being respectfully treated by the public offices and officers it will be engaging, the ombudsman’s office will face the problems of re-introducing itself to the public and acquiring the requisite resources to discharge its functions. Given the absence of this office for the last eight years, the Ombudsman’s office would have to assiduously make members of the public in all parts of the country aware of its functions and capacities. The office will also require the resources to get to the disparate parts of the country and to conduct detailed investigations of the complaints before it. The success of the office will pivot solely on its ability to produce results for those who seek its intervention.
The office’s scope is wide and is addressed on eight pages of the 247-page constitution. In the main as set out in article 192 of the constitution: “Subject to the provisions of this article, the Ombudsman may investigate any action taken by any department of government or by any other authority to which this article applies, or by the President, Ministers, officers or members of such a department or authority, being action taken in exercise of the administrative functions of that department or authority”.
Optimism for the optimal functioning of this office would not be high when one considers the fate of similar bodies. The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is a classic example. Launched under the Hoyte administration this important mechanism has functioned for close to 25 years with the major defect that it is unable to conduct its own investigations into alleged abuses by the police against members of the public. Each investigation has to be conducted by the police. It is well accepted that the abilities of the police are suspect in any investigation much more in relation to their colleagues. Despite administration after administration accepting that there is a major flaw in how the PCA functions nothing has been done about it. While it has undoubtedly produced results in its many years of operation, the PCA is ultimately beholden to the police to investigate their own and its fortunes have varied depending on the Police Commissioner in office. Needless to say there have been significant delays in investigations, a lack of response in some cases and aggrieved members of the public will not have the level of confidence in the authority that they should. The police’s own internal investigative arm, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has not inspired the public to believe that misbehaviour by the police will be taken seriously and there have been many shocking examples of the police letting each other off. The most glaring example of this is the forgiving of senior police officers who were involved in corruption as regards the acquisition of a boat for the police force. Numerous other investigations have been launched by the OPR without the public ever being advised of the results. Given these circumstances, it is hoped that the ombudsman’s office will be given a budgetary allocation commensurate with the scope of its mandate and the demands on it.
The appointment of the Ombudsman is but a small step on the road towards restoring credibility in watchdog institutions and making officials accountable. The Auditor General’s Office – the premier watchdog on accountability- would now be considered a satellite of central government as opposed to a fearless champion of financial rectitude. The government’s hold on this constitutional office through upper level appointments has seriously eroded its independence as evidenced by its increasingly innocuous annual reports on government accounts and the lack of investigation of major and questionable expenditures by the government.
The Integrity Commission which is meant to ensure that the public officials covered under its act are not engaged in illicit and corrupt acts to enrich themselves has not functioned in many years and it is clear that the Jagdeo administration had no interest in its enlivening. Its present form would be considered an embarrassment in any self-respecting democracy and there is no sign of an imminent change in its condition via the Ramotar administration.
Government continues to stonewall on the Public Procurement Commission while questionable deals like the awarding of radio licences to a favoured few, the specialty hospital, the invitation for the setting up of a waste recycling plant, the Muri survey permission and the DY Patil MOU continue to advance through various artifices and shortcomings in the accountability framework. The government doesn’t want to operate in a fully accountable framework yet wants the benefits from pretending that it is.
The continuing absence of the Public Service Appellate Tribunal, an Access to Information Act that inspires confidence and whistleblower legislation further dilutes the varied mechanisms through which the public can gain confidence in government and exact answers. The appointing of the Ombudsman is a hopeful sign but one that can easily become mired in a vortex of official actions to prevent its effective functioning.
