Integrity Commission lacks funding to publish names of delinquent public officials
-as key national anti-corruption measures remain dormant
The Integrity Commission is unable publish and gazette the names of public officers who are delinquent in filing their declarations with the body for this year as it does not have the funds to do so, according to Chairman Kumar Doraisami.
Doraisami, who says he has been told by government that the Commission can get no additional funds for the year, has for months been decrying what he sees as inadequate funding for the effective execution of the Commission’s mandate, which is to ensure the integrity of persons holding public office.
As a result, Doraisami told Sunday Stabroek that in the circumstances, the Commission is examining whether, and if so how, it can enforce compliance with the Integrity Commission Act, which states that public officials are required to file a declaration of all assets in their names, as well as the assets in the names of their spouses and children.
Over the past year, the Commission had been publicly identifying those public officials who were delinquent in filing declarations and has said the publicity resulted in some officials moving to become compliant with their obligations.
According to the Act, every person who is a person in public life, not being a member of the Commission, is required to file a declaration every year on or before June 30th and in cases where such persons cease to be a person in public life, within 30 days from the date on which the person ceases to be a person in public life. “A person in public life is required to disclose in his declaration… such details in respect of the income, assets and liabilities of himself and those of his spouse and his children, as by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to him,” the Act states, while adding that for the purposes of a declaration under Section 13, the income, assets and liabilities of a person in public life, his spouse and his child shall include the income, assets and liabilities acquired, held or incurred by any other person as agent or on behalf of all or any of them.
The Act also states that the Commission or the President, as the case may be, shall receive, examine and retain all declarations and documents filed with it or him under the Act; and make such enquiries as it or he considers necessary in order to verify or determine the accuracy of the financial affairs, as stated in the declarations of persons who are required to file declarations under this Act.
With general elections due to be held next March as a result of the passage of a no-confidence motion against the government, Doraisami also said he believes that some public officials are taking advantage of the current political uncertainty to circumvent their legal obligation to file their declarations.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that President David Granger and several government ministers failed to file their declarations by the deadline. Some ministers, including Natural Resources Minister, Raphael Trotman, Finance Minister Winston Jordan, and Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson, have all said that they had filed their declarations within the deadline.
On the opposition side, Opposition Leader Bharat Jagdeo on Friday admitted that he was not aware of whether all opposition Members of Parliament have filed their declarations. He did confirm, however, that aside from himself, Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali have all filed their declarations.
This disclosure was made during the “soft launch” of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s manifesto.
Notably, Jagdeo also used the occasion to promise that if the PPP/C returns to power, it will strengthen the Integrity Commission’s capacity to function, promulgate campaign finance legislation, and reduce government involvement in processing tax exemptions, and the granting of contracts. Jagdeo also said that a PPP/C government would criminalise non-disclosure of receipts from oil companies. Instead, he said, all such receipts would be required by law to be gazetted, failing which, the offending official would be liable to imprisonment for a significant period of time. This latter provisions, Jagdeo said would be aimed at improving transparency in the oil and gas sector.
No effective compliance
The incapacitation of the Integrity Commission by its current financial woes could be seen as a blow to Guyana’s anticorruption architecture, which is already hamstrung by government’s failure to activate the Public Disclosures Act 2018 and the Witness Protection Act 2018, which were expected to bolster the legal framework.
Though the existence of the Integrity Commission Act ensures Guyana’s legal compliance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, its chronic inability to properly execute its mandate means that that Guyana lacks effective compliance, as it is not enough that a regime exist. It must also work.
The Convention obligates Guyana to make provisions to allow for protected disclosures regarding corruption, and to provide protection for persons who make
disclosures which, in fact, or potentially puts their lives at risk.
The Protected Disclosures Act, and the Witness Protection Act, which were both passed as bills in January of 2018, were intended to address these considerations.
However, nearly two years since then, the laws are no closer to being implemented.
As a result, although Guyana attained legal compliance with the Convention through enactment of the respective legislation, it continues to fail in achieving effective compliance.
Several reasons have been given by various government officials for this failure. Most of the reasons given have been a lack of financial resources.
This newspaper raised the issue of the activation of the Acts on Thursday during a post-Cabinet press briefing.
On the subject of the Protected Disclosures Act, Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon told reporters “that piece of legislation, I think, that is already activated.”
In fact, the Act has not been activated, which is evident for the non-operationalisation of several of its provisions. For instance, section 4 (1) of that Act requires the establishment and constitution of a Protected Disclosures Commission, which is required to receive, investigate and otherwise deal with disclosures of improper conduct.
The efficacy of the Act is hinged on the operationalisation of the Commission. So long as the Commission is not established, the Act remains ineffective.
There has been no indication by members of either government, or the opposition party, of plans to establish the Commission soon after the coming elections.
On the subject of witness protection, Harm on said “witness protection… sometimes… requires interstate collaboration .”
He noted that generally there are provisions, such as conditional bail, which operates to protect persons who must give evidence in a matter.
He also said that “until you actually come forward and state that you have a problem, I’m afraid and all of that, it is at that point in that… there is a need for protection… but at this stage I cannot say that this has been the principal issue identified by the minister.”
Harmon added, “What we are talking about is a higher level protection, where some people have to change their identity, you have to move them out from a whole area… and you know Guyana is a small place.” Harmon also said that “while are looking at these things, we will have to look at collaboration among states so that we would have a more effective way of dealing with that issue.”
There was no mention as to any concrete plans, or any definitive timetable mapping out when the matters being looked at will be addressed, and the Act implemented.
In the interim, President David Granger, recently speaking on the absence of evidence on which to charge Roger Khan for the myriad accusations against him, noted that the dearth of evidence is, in part, the result of an unwillingness of witnesses to come forward.