IS THIS SOME SORT OF JOKE?

Feb 08, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Surely, the government could not be serious in proposing Dr. James Rose as the Chairperson of the Integrity Commission. Surely this is not the sort of nomination that would rebuild public confidence in the work of such an important body which aims at promoting probity in public life.

This is not an indictment against Dr. Rose. He is on all accounts someone that has given yeoman service to the educational sector. He is someone whose integrity has never been questioned in public. He is a bright man. He may even be a good man.

The fault does not lie with him. The fault lies with those who have offered him up as a nominee to Chair the Integrity Commission.

Dr. Rose spoke on a political platform for the People’s Progressive Party. If my memory serves me correctly, he may have even at one time been a candidate for the ruling party.

It is therefore inconceivable that someone who has spoken on a political platform for the ruling party (I think it was in Essequibo) would be nominated as the Chairperson of the Integrity Commission to examine the assets of ministers and other government officials.

This choice is bound to be viewed as a partisan nomination and will therefore further undermine public confidence in the work of the commission.

That confidence has in recent weeks been in remission because of statements made by the Head of State which conveyed the impression that he was exercising some sort of supervisory role over the Integrity Commission, and who ended up giving an ultimatum to members of parliament to comply with the law or face prosecution.

The President has seemingly corrected himself and has now sought to reconstitute the Commission. It is indeed good that the President has seen the wisdom in retracing his steps in this matter but it does no good for the government to be identifying someone who has been on the political platform of the ruling party to be nominated. This surely cannot be a vote of confidence in either building confidence in the work of the commission or in promoting greater independence.

What is also worrying is the limited range of skills which the government is nominating for the Commission. A number of religious leaders are also being nominated by the government. But since probing the assets of public officials would be aided by persons knowledgeable in accounting, one would have at least expected someone with forensic auditing skills to have been nominated.

And since the work of the commission is likely to be subject at some time or the other to some form of legal challenge or questioning, one would have expected that of the names nominated there would have been someone with legal skills.

The opposition however should remain optimistic, but should do its best to reverse the nominations made by the government. Clearly, it is now incumbent on the opposition to propose two sets of objections to the nominees.

The first objection should be to ensure that there is greater diversity in the representation of skills on the reconstituted Commission. At least one of the commissioners should be a forensic auditor.

The second objection should be to insist that none of the commissioners should have had a working relationship with the government or any of its top officials. One of the government’s nominees is known, for example, to have accompanied the President on overseas visits.

While there is no compulsion for the government to reach agreement with the Leader of the Opposition in the making of appointments, there is a legal obligation for the government to meaningfully consult with the opposition. The opposition should use this mechanism to voice its strong objections to the proposed composition of the Integrity Commission.

It would be also be helpful in this instance, if particularly Dr. Rose would signal to the President that he does not feel that his appointment would contribute to the rebuilding of public confidence in the work of the Integrity Commission.

Dr. Rose should not be blamed for having been nominated but he should do the right thing and recognize that his appointment is bound to be controversial given his past association with the ruling party and thus he should decline the nomination.

All the other persons who have served on the Commission should equally consider not returning so as to allow for a fresh start to be made, and more importantly to allow for a wide range of skills to be available on the Commission itself.

The government by its handling of this matter has not endeared itself to the confidence of the people of Guyana. It has been made to look less than serious about promoting probity in public life.

---

---