Thursday, September 17 2009

WE were astounded and appalled by Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s virtual proposal to amend/abolish the Integrity Commission, which is the country’s main watchdog against corrupt enrichment by public officials such as politicians.

Mr Manning decried the Commission as he addressed supporters last week Sunday at a PNM rally at Mayaro, and previously at a recent PNM rally at Diego Martin.

At Mayaro he claimed, “The Integrity Commission just is not working, and the Government has to go back to the drawing board on the Integrity Commission.”

At the earlier Diego Martin rally, Mr Manning vowed to “completely rethink” and “completely review” the question of the Integrity Commission. He apparently claimed the existence of the Commission (to which all public officials must account) was making it ever harder to get persons to sit as directors on the board of State agencies.

Mr Manning even went further to try to justify his rethink of the Integrity Commission by saying it is becoming harder to appoint members of the Commission itself.

We are appalled for two reasons. Firstly, while Mr Manning used the rally to try to “sell” certain proposals from the Draft Constitution, we note with alarm that his proposal to amend/abolish the Integrity Commission is a totally new suggestion.

Although the Draft Constitution is very controversial, it nevertheless had proposed to retain the Integrity Commission as exists in the current Constitution.

So, we wonder, what has emboldened Mr Manning to now virtually propose the abolition of the Integrity Commission?

This must be pondered, given the fact that allegations about several top Government officials had been sent to the Integrity Commission regarding alleged conflicts of interest between their public duties and their private affairs.

Any objective observer would surely find it totally unacceptable for the Prime Minister to propose to rethink and review the Integrity Commission even as it is investigating such alleged wrongdoing.

Secondly, why should the political directorate benefit from its own failings?

Let us explain.

Mr Manning’s proposal to amend/abolish the Integrity Commission is based on his claim that “it has not worked well.” We ask, whose fault is that?

The fact that this country has not had a functioning Integrity Commission for nearly nine months is largely due to the bungling of President George Maxwell Richards in appointing a Commission in May under Fr Henry Charles which lasted but one week.

Mr Manning is apparently proposing that the bungling of Richards - elected by the Government-dominated electoral college as a virtual Manning-appointee - must now benefit all the other virtual Manning-appointees who hold public office by excluding them from scrutiny by the Integrity Commission. How farcical!

We also say that Richards’ bungling of the appointments must not be used to tarnish the institution of the Integrity Commission.

While the nation was traumatised by last May’s crisis - with calls for Richards’ head - it seems the current lack of an Integrity Commission is a state of affairs which Mr Manning would like to make permanent, say, perhaps by legislating the body out of existence.

Mr Manning’s proposal to alter/abolish the Integrity Commission is the Government’s latest - and most brazen - pot-shot at this body.

We recall that during last May’s crisis, the Government was also trying to legislate to severely cut the powers of the Integrity Commission by a new Bill which would stop them investigating upon their own initiative (but rely only on complaints received) and would in turn curb complainants by forcing whistle-blowers to expose their own identities. We recall too that for several years the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming even to get Parliament to approve the declaration forms required to effect the 2000 Integrity in Public Life Act which replaced its 1987 predecessor.

Today, the Commission is sorely needed because there are simply too many multi-million dollars deals being done with public funds but with very little accountability by the Government. Udecott, University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT), CEPEP, Brian Lara Stadium at Tarouba , two world conferences being held here, and costly helicopter purchases, all require a public scrutiny such as can be given by the Integrity Commission.

We say “developed nation status” will not be reached by huge spending, but by accountability and transparency of the public purse.

To dare to suggest scrapping the Integrity Commission is a slap in the face to the citizenry.