Not serious about integrity

None of the problems associated with the present Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) have been addressed by the Bill tabled by the Government to amend the IPLA. The amendment is self-serving and designed to undermine, instead of strengthen, integrity in public life. There is no evidence of any avalanche of frivolous complaints to justify the draconian measures the Government seeks to introduce against ordinary people who wish to make complaints.

The present law understands and recognises the fact that ordinary citizens would not have access to hard evidence to prove corruption. People might have a suspicion or have a small part of a larger jigsaw puzzle. They might know something is wrong, but cannot prove a case because they do not have access to the official documentary evidence. Corruption normally involves a conspiracy or joint enterprise by several public officials.

This is why the IPLA allows and encourages citizens to make complaints without any hassle. The Integrity Commission is given wide powers to investigate the complaint and must do so. The IC has never once complained in any of its annual reports laid in Parliament that this system was being abused. On the contrary, it was under-utilised as evidenced by the low number of complaints. If the concern is the need to protect public officials from baseless, frivolous complaints, then the law should be amended to mandate the IC to publish the results of its investigation in all daily newspapers so that the official can be publicly vindicated where appropriate.

Face accuser

No one will make a complaint if their identity will be disclosed and they risk a $500,000 fine and five-year jail term if the complaint is found to be false. The argument that the public official is entitled to know his accuser is also hollow. If the complaint is investigated and has merit, the public official will get his chance to face his accuser in court when he is criminally prosecuted. This is what occurs in our criminal justice system. The Government has itself been encouraging anonymous complaints via the Crime Stoppers hotline to help fight crime.

Police routinely act on “tip-offs” and information from informants. They execute search warrants, arrest people, etc, and this is all lawful. Why should the IC not be able to act in a similar fashion when it comes to the investigation of corruption? What the Government should have done is deal with the problems caused by the lack of accountability and transparency in the functioning and operations of the IC. No details are provided in its annual reports about the number and type of complaints, the status of the investigation into these complaints and the time-frame for completing same.

Matters needlessly and endlessly drag, until the frustrated complainant loses interest and faith. The complaint that arose out of the Maha Sabha’s radio licence discrimination case has dragged on for three years now with no end in sight. Former Vice President of UTT Ken Fitz Andrews has a complaint against Ken Julien that is similarly dragging on. The complaint about the illegal political rally held in Woodford Square will probably suffer a similar fate.

The IC itself has not demonstrated that it is prepared to use the wide powers given to it to conduct aggressive, robust and expeditions investigations. It has been a spineless institution given to political subservience. Why not an amendment to state that the IC must complete its investigation within 12 months from the date of the complaint? The independence of the IC is another problem that the Government has avoided. In the Rowley matter, Justice Rajnauth-Lee said:

No confirmation

“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 embarrassing collapse of the IC should have prompted an amendment that would change the way commissioners are appointed.

Should we remove the need for the president to consult the prime minister and opposition leaders? There would be no need for “confirmation” by anyone then. Should names be vetted by Parliament? These are just some of the serious concerns and problems that should have been addressed by the Government if it was serious about the need for Integrity in Public Life and wanted to strengthen the IC. But that is only if this was the Government’s intention.

by Anand Ramlogan 2009-05-17