Some things never change, and so it is with the Integrity Commission. The body which is charged with ensuring that our public officers are accountable has not proved very successful in fulfilling its purpose. This week we reported that as of the end of 2023, 628 persons out of 1,580 still had declarations outstanding, and that the Commission had said their names would be published by the end of the first half of this year.
Under the 1997 Integrity Commission Act certain specified individuals in public life are required to submit an annual declaration of their own assets and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and children. The Commissioners are to inquire into any discrepancies between the declarations and the assets held or into any inconsistency with apparent lifestyles. They are also charged with investigating complaints of impropriety, corruption and misconduct by public officials and with referring those who violate the code of conduct for prosecution.
The current Commission comprises Chair-person Chandra Gajraj and four Commission-ers:
Dr Joycelin Kim Kyte-Thomas, Hardesh Tewari, Mohamed Ispahani and Reverend Wayne Bowman. It was constituted on May 31 2022 after the life of the previous Commission ended on February 21, 2021, but to date appears to have had no more success securing compliance with the law than did its predecessors.
Where declarations are concerned Section 19 of the Act empowers the Commission to publish a list of defaulters in the Official Gazette and a local newspaper. Names have been published before, of course, but in many instances that does not seem to have embarrassed the defaulters into complying with the law. If they do not do so then the next stage prescribed is prosecution, where they become liable to a fine of $25,000 along with six months’ imprisonment. Under Section 22 of the Act there is a provision for a fine of $10,000 per day for those who still fail to submit a declaration, as it is categorised as a continuing offence.
Last year the Commission said that it had made over forty recommendations through the Attorney General’s Chambers for the “modernization of the 1997 Integrity Commission Act” because it continued to be “an impediment to compliance.” Exactly what those forty recommendations were was not revealed to the public, but in any case not a peep has been heard from the AG about them since.
That aside, the Commission at an earlier stage had said that its Chairperson Chandra Gajraj had been holding informal meetings with people in public life, as well as initiating more than 20 informal meetings in public offices “to discuss matters related to the work of the Commission.” In addition, there had been eleven outreaches with “specified officers” in the three months between November 2022 and January 2023 as well as engagements with the Speaker and members of the National Assembly. All of that seems to have been a wasted effort, but then the Commission should have known it would be. Public officials in this country hardly need it explained to them what the Act is about or why it is needed; they know that already. It is just that they don’t intend to operate in accordance with the law.
In September last year it was reported that seventeen Members of Parliament were in default along with 108 in ministries, 208 in the regions and 493 in agencies and departments. In other words a huge number of our public officials simply don’t take the Integrity Commission seriously, which should not surprise its members, since although there have been warnings there have been no reports of prosecutions as yet.
It is not as if the delinquents are lesser known public officials; among them are Members of Parlia-ment along with a generous sprinkling of mayors. If those in leadership positions do not set an example, then it is hardly surprising that those lower down the chain of command omit to do their duty.
It has to be asked why not just this Commission, but its predecessor too have evinced such reluctance to prosecute, and one can only speculate that it relates to the penalty for default in cases of recalcitrance, which in addition to a fine of $25,000 includes a six-months’ prison term. It may be that the Commissioners are hesitant to go the required route given our antagonistic political circumstances.
It might be noted that our neighbour Trinidad & Tobago which has an equivalent Act relating to integrity on its statute books has been very successful in ensuring compliance with the law. In their case, however, after the Integrity Commission has published a name in the Gazette and a local newspaper with no result, an ex-parte application is made to the Court for an order directing the defaulter to comply with the Act. The penalty for non-compliance with the Court order is a hefty fine.
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone woke up the AG and asked him to look at the recommendations for modernising the Integrity law that he appears to have shunted aside. At the very least the $25,000 fine is nonsensical in terms of the dollar’s current value and the official earnings of public officers, while a prison term in such circumstances is problematic. That said, however, in the meantime the Integrity Commission has little option but to use the sanction of prosecution whatever the penalty. After all, it might concentrate minds wonderfully and cause a flurry of declarations from the delinquents to flow in.
When all is said and done there is no point in having a pretence Integrity Commission; it has to use its powers if it is to be effective. And it needs to be effective, because it is a critical institution in our ongoing fight against corruption in the public sphere.
