Almost two-thirds of public officials have failed to fulfil their legal duty to declare their assets to the Integrity Commission for the current year, according to Chairman Kumar Doraisami, who says while plans are in train to once again publicly identify those in default, a lack of needed funding is preventing a move to prosecute.
During an interview with Sunday Stabroek on Friday, Doraisami noted that the Commission distributed 1,137 declaration forms to facilitate the filing of declarations this year, but only 396 or 35% were returned.
The Integrity Commission Act required all persons in public life to file their declarations each year by or before June 30th, 2019, meaning that the statutory deadline has passed. Failure to file a declaration or filing false or incomplete declarations are offences and can be prosecuted once the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is obtained.
Doraisami explained that the Commission had voted to extend the deadline to August 31st, 2019. Last year, Doraisami said that 1,321 forms were distributed but only 765 (58%) were filed, while the remainder remain outstanding. The deadline was extended then as well.
As a result of the high rate of delinquency, the Commission initially published a full-page notice of officials who had not filed their declarations in the November 10th, 2018 edition of the Guyana Chronicle. Among the defaulters were 41 Members of Parliament (MPs), including senior government ministers and opposition members as well as the House Speaker. Several other lists of defaulting public officials were published thereafter and Doraisami had told this newspaper that following the publications, several persons promptly complied, but that many others were still delinquent.
Though his name was not published by the Commission, President David Granger had admitted that he was not fully compliant with his declaration obligations under the Act, but added that he was working to rectify the situation. It is not known whether he has done so.
Among the defaulters this year, Doraisami revealed, are several MPs as up to Friday only 11 of them had filed their declarations. Doraisami lamented the failure of these persons in particular to file their declarations, given that they function in some of the highest public offices and are remunerated extensively by private funds.
He said the Commission would be publishing the names of defaulters for the current year either in November or December.
In addition, Doraisami also noted that the Commission’s work is being hampered by inadequate funding. He said that the commission needs investigators to verify the accuracy of the declarations filed. It presently has just one.
He also said that while the Commission is moving toward hiring attorneys-at-law to prosecute delinquent persons, it is not in a position to pay them if they are hired because it does not have the finances. Additionally, he said the Commission recently approached the Ministry of Finance for a supplementary budget but was told that it cannot receive any further funds until next year. As a result, while the Commission has the requisite funds to satisfy its overhead expenses for the remainder of the year, it is not in a position to efficiently execute its mandate.
Financial autonomy
Doraisami believes that it is time for the Commission to be given financial independence and allowed to be in control of its own budget. He said that the solution to the Commission’s financial woes lies in granting the entity constitutional status by providing for its establishment, and administrative and financial autonomy under the Constitution.
During a post-Cabinet press briefing on Friday, Director-General of the Ministry of Presidency Joseph Harmon, when asked whether government would consider seeking to have the commission elevated to a constitutional body, thereby giving it financial autonomy, said, “We have reconstituted that commission. We provided them with financial resources necessary for the work. We have provided them with facilities for their offices to do their work. We have guaranteed the independence of this commission, and so that is now they are acting…any changes that are to be made to the Commission, making it independent and all of that, these are not things that we will deal with now. We are in interim mode and there are certain things that we cannot go ahead and do.”
(Also when questioned on the subject, Harmon shared that he has filed his declaration pursuant to the Act for the current year.)
In view of the challenges which has faced the Commission since the Integrity Commission Act was passed in 1997, President of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc, Dr. Troy Thomas, when asked his opinion on making the Commission a constitutional body, said, “I can see how making it a creature of the Constitution would deal with some of the challenges it has been having. If it is a creature of the Constitution, they can have an annual budget and make provisions for whatever they want.”
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, when contacted about the proposition, said “any measure that would augment the independence of an entity like the Integrity Commission would receive my support.”
Doraisami also lamented the fact that the commissionership is a part-time post, which is unfortunate, given the nature of the Commission’s mandate (anti-corruption). He suggested that the post should be made a full time undertaking, as this will allow for more work to be done or a sustained basis.
“A declaration under subsection (1) or (2) shall give full, true and complete particulars of the assets and liabilities as on the relevant date, and the income during a period of twelve months immediately prior to the relevant date, of the person filling the declaration (whether the assets were held by that person in his own name or in the name of any other person) and of the spouse and children of such person to the extent to which such person has knowledge of the same,” the Integrity Commission Act states.
It further adds that that those officials who fail to submit their declarations or submit declarations that are false or incomplete shall be liable, on summary conviction, to “a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months nor more than one year, and where the offence involves the non-disclosure, by the declarant, of property, which should have been disclosed in the declaration, the magistrate convicting the person shall order the person to make full disclosure of the property within a given time and on failure to comply with the order of the magistrate within the given time, the said offence shall be deemed to be a continuing offence and the person shall be liable to a further fine of ten thousand dollars for each day on which the offence continues.”
