The need for transparency and integrity in public life is based on the fact that public officials and institutions are financed by and spend money that belongs to the people of this country. The public's 'right to know' stems from this simple fact. Unfortunately, far from accounting to the population, pubic authorities disconnect themselves from the people and govern with a sense of condescending arrogance. Minister Camille Robinson-Regis got a sad and bitter taste of how strong this 'right to know' is this week when she was forced to provide intimate details of her medical history because she 'naively' misinterpreted the rules governing the use and financial limits of credit cards issued to cabinet ministers. The only reason this unfortunate episode occurred is because public funds are used to pay these credit card bills. Although secrecy is sometimes necessary, in this country, too much is kept secret and hidden from the public on spurious grounds. The Integrity Commission (IC) is a good example. It is there to protect and serve the public by monitoring, detecting and investigating corruption but does not see it fit to tell the nation how many complaints it has received, what is the status of each and when pending investigations would be concluded. We are entitled to know more about its modus operandi. This kind of secrecy on the part of public institutions fuels suspicions of political bias and provides fertile ground for corruption, misconduct and maladministration. Take, for example, the present matter involving attempts to remove the Chief Justice. High Court judge Justice Stollmeyer had adjudicated on a complaint made by CJ Sharma that the Chief Magistrate had maliciously made a false report about him. This complaint was investigated and dismissed but the report was never made public. (Yeah, it is like the Gladys Gafoor report into the health sector and the reports from the Commissions of Enquiries that the government refuses to disclose). More currently, Justice Sebastien Ventour was appointed to investigate the conduct of Mr Mc Nicholls in the aborted criminal trial against the CJ. The government had fought long and hard to win the right to criminally prosecute Sharma, spending millions of dollars and going all the way to the Privy Council. The public was deprived of much-anticipated cross-examination. Several weeks have passed and no one knows whether Justice Ventour has completed his investigations and if so, what his recommendations were. What if Justice Ventour recommended disciplinary action against the Chief Magistrate? What if he exonerated him and said he acted quite properly in refusing to testify? What if the Judicial & Legal Services Commission (JLSC) is dragging its heels and refusing to take disciplinary action as recommended by the very judge who it had appointed to investigate and report on this matter? Is the JLSC delaying to accommodate and facilitate the Prime Minister's wish to have the CJ impeached without a cloud hanging over the head of his chief witness? The farcical and shameful abortion of the trial against the CJ destroyed the credibility of Mc Nicholls. He was severely criticised in public and was single-handedly responsible for the waste of millions of dollars of tax payers money by not disclosing his unwillingness to testify in a criminal trial in the face of a prolonged and expensive legal battle by the government to clear the way for a criminal trial against the CJ in which he (McNiholls) was to be the star witness for the prosecution. Had Mc Nicholls made this clear the case there would have been no need for the State to defend the judicial review case and impeachment proceedings might have been over by now? In these circumstances does the population not have a right to know what is the status and outcome of the investigation that was launched into the conduct of Mc Nicholls? If disciplinary action was recommended when would the JLSC initiate same? Would it subject McNicholls to disciplinary proceedings before, during or after the impeachment hearing where he is the star witness? What if at the end of the disciplinary hearing it is resolved that McNicholls had brought the office of the Chief Magistrate into disrepute and should be suspended or dismissed? Would this not affect his credibility? And should the impeachment tribunal not have the benefit of knowing all that it can about the credibility of the main witness upon whose evidence the CJ could be removed? The public has a right to know and the JLSC should come clean and indicate the position of this troubling matter lest it be accused of conspiring with the government to facilitate this impeachment. By Anand Ramlogan 2007-05-26