Deputy chairman of the Integrity Commission, Justice Sebastian Ventour, is hoping some major changes will be made to the Integrity in Public Life Act to root out corruption and to ensure those who fail to account are brought to justice. He said so at the presentation of commission’s recommendations on the Integrity in Public Life (Amendment) Bill at the Hyatt Regency hotel, Port-of-Spain, yesterday.
He said by amending the Act the commission intended to safeguard the nation from those given almost unrestricted access to public resources and who may be inclined to abuse those resources. Among the proposals is to wiretap people under investigation. “The debilitating effects of corruption are well documented. There is mounting evidence, documented by Transparency International, among others, that corruption can and sometimes do inflict immense, often irreparable damage on the country.
“This, essentially, is the rationale for the legislative and other measures that we propose to take to govern the behaviour of our public officials,” Ventour said. He said the commission did not assume all those in public life and those who perform public functions were corrupt. The vast majority of public officials, both appointed and elected, Ventour said, gave sterling and dedicated service and enriched the best traditions of selfless public service.
“These officials need to be encouraged and their contributions recognised. The best way to give such encouragement and recognition is to call to account those who do not play by the rules,” Ventour urged. On people coming forward to serve on the commission, Ventour said, that remained a challenge and resulted in crucial work being negatively affected. He said for quite some time the commission did not have an accountant, for instance.
He added: “For the past five years the commission lost approximately 535 days of productive days because we did not have a member of the commission... there were not five members of the commission as the Act provides. “As of March 13 last year, prior to November 20... prior to the appointment of our new chairman... the commission lost approximately 250 days.
“So while the public notes the inactivity of the commission it really has not been the commission’s fault, neither has it been the President’s fault because as I understand it is extremely difficult to get new members of the public to service as members of the Integrity Commission. “Why?” I do not know,” Ventour said.
He said the commission was ready to present its final draft summary report for amendment of the Act to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan for it to be debated in Parliament.
New additions
The commission has also recommended that new categories of people in public life submit their declarations of income, assets and liabilities.
These are chairmen and members of service commissions; Transport Commissioner; Commissioner of Police; Chief Immigration Officer; chairman of Board of Inland Revenue; Comptroller of Customs; chief executives and members of State boards; all statutory bodies; municipal corporations and enterprises; whether or not they are partially or wholly funded by the State; and special and technical advisers to ministers.
The commission is seeking to remove permanent secretaries or chief accounting officers under the Exchequer and Audit Act, chief legal officers referred to in the Judicial and Legal Services Act and chief technical officers.
Public forum
Members of the audience raised a wide range of concerns and questions. Head of the Public Service Reynold Cooper, the permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister, asked whether a person in public life would be liable if in his declaration of net worth failed to declare the assets of a spouse. Ventour said the Act provided that the declaration include information “known.” “So if it is not known to you, it cannot be included,” he added.
Joint Consultative Council (JCC) president Afra Raymond said one of the main questions to be asked was what had gone wrong in terms of how public officials stole money. He asked: “What is it that they do? Because we have had an integrity commission for a certain number of years and the quantity of corruption does not seem to be going down.
“The first point about public money is a great deal of attention is focused on the declaration stage. It is refreshing to see the draft proposal suggests that the declaration may be expanded which is a step in the right direction. “I can say without fear of contradiction that the huge State enterprises... the majority of them are in the breach of the code of conduct. There are compelling cases there for the Integrity Commission to take action,” Raymond added.