Integrity problem

The track record of the politically compliant Integrity Commission (IC) is a matter of national shame. Dormant for years, people barely paid any attention to it until Panday’s arrest. Its operations are shrouded in secrecy and there is no accountability to the public to enable critical evaluation of its performance.  

The IC has never bothered to provide the nation with a list of the actual complaints submitted for investigation, the status of same and a time frame for a determination or decision. Members of the public who have relevant information about a matter have no chance/opportunity to assist the IC because they have no idea what/who has been reported to it. Shouldn’t the IC publish complaints received? The advertisement can make it clear that these are unproven allegations and invite anyone with relevant information to contact the investigator.  

The IC needs the resources to clear the present backlog but will be at the mercy of the government in this regard. The new IC must learn from the mistakes of the past IC. They did not understand their powers under the Act and refused to invoke them. Instead of acting as an independent body, they sought paid legal advice for the simplest of things (and still managed to get it wrong!).

More money was probably spent on lawyers than investigating complaints! The IC was reduced to no more than mere puppets of the external lawyers. This, despite the fact that a distinguished lawyer is appointed to serve on the IC and there are several in-house lawyers who actually work for the IC.  

Complainants were being asked to virtually do the work of the investigators who showed no real enterprise and initiative. No one was ever summoned for example, to provide documents or give a statement. You had to try and persuade the people to come forward yourself. The IC was guilty of stonewalling instead of helping.

The choice of investigator was also a problem. Retired and serving police officers are utilized but they come from a culture consistent with the protection of status quo. Their attitude leaves a lot to be desired and their level of efficiency is reflected in the lack of progress on these complaints. The use of the foreign firms that have been selected by and work for the government is another sore point as there is the perception of bias in these investigation. What, for example, is the status of the complaint filed by former Vice President of Finance at UTT Ken Fitzandrew? The Canadian firm of Intellisis was hired to investigate and completed this years ago. No action was taken by the IC. Ken died, frustrated and without vindication.  

This is the modus operandi of the IC: let it languish; with time, frustration and depression will cause the matter to disappear...somehow. Shouldn’t the IC publish the decision on every compliant in the newspapers? People who were wrongly accused will feel a sense of public vindication or be notified that the matter has been referred to the DPP for prosecution.

The Maha Sabha radio licence complaint has dragged on for years now. Former Independent Senator Professor Julian Kenny and the Maha Sabha had submitted complaints over the award of a radio broadcast licence to PNM party hack Louis Lee Sing’s Citadel Ltd.

The Privy Council described the actions of the Government as “arbitrary and capricious.” The case revealed an intricate web of deception and intrigue on the part of high government officials to perpetuate and then conceal the discriminatory treatment of the Maha Sabha. Of particular concern is the findings by the Privy Council that the State misled the Court of Appeal and allowed it to twice give judgments on a false premise. The judgments slammed the abuse of state power and raised an almost irrefutable case of serious wrongdoing and misconduct in public office.

The investigation into this complaint has been completed for some time now but no action was taken to refer the matter to the DPP because the last IC resigned in the wake of revelations that it was consulting Manning on how to treat with the Rowley affair. Apart from this matter however, there are several complaints about political corruption, insider trading, nepotism, discrimination, private profit and preferential treatment.

The evidence to substantiate/prove a violation resides in the bosom of the state itself and the IC has ample powers to facilitate an aggressive and proper investigation. Instead of ignoring these powers and putting the burden of proof on the complainant, it should understand and invoke these powers to facilitate a genuine and meaningful investigation. This assumes, of course, that this is in fact the mandate and intention of the IC.   

By Anand Ramlogan