Integrity body for public officials currently a ‘toothless poodle’

Jun 11, 2012 News

---

…PM’s Parliamentary demand to sink before setting sail – APNU

A motion by Guyana’s Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds, scheduled for debate this Thursday in the National Assembly will have seemingly sunk even before it has come up for debate to set sail.

The motion in the name Hinds, reportedly threatens to expose delinquent Members of Parliament (MP’s) for failing to make annual declarations to the Integrity Commission.
The commission in its current form however has been dubbed a “toothless poodle” and is non functional as has been indicated by the Secretariat of the Commission.
Speaking with this publication yesterday, Executive Member of A Partnership for National Unity and its second highest ranking member, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine said definitively that the coalition will not be supporting Hinds’ Motion.
Dr. Roopnaraine informed that only recently the Coalition’s Leader, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, was in receipt of a missive from the Secretariat of the Integrity Commission.
This missive purportedly warned that should the members of APNU default on making declarations, then delinquents will have their names Gazetted and publicly exposed.
The APNU’s second in command informed this publication that the Opposition Leader responded to the Secretariat and requested to know who the Chairman of that Body was and further who the commissioners were.
He said that the coalition Leader, received a second missive from the Secretariat informing that there is no Chairman and further, there are no Commissioners in place.
As such, APNU’s Members of Parliament have been instructed to prepare their declarations and hold them until a Commission can be put in place to the satisfaction of the Coalition.
Dr. Roopnaraine said that the Commission must at the very least have forensic and investigative capabilities and not just be a body that receives reports and files them.
He said that the coalition has been drawing attention to allegations of corruption at times where fingers have been pointed at Cabinet Ministers but to date there has been no investigation of their declarations to ascertain accuracy.
Dr. Roopnaraine says that the party will not be making any declarations to a Commission that cannot even investigate what is has before it.
The APNU Executive Member’s comments are not a far cry from those of his Alliance for Change (AFC) colleague Parliamentarian, Cathy Hughes.
Hughes recently made her reservations publicly known, as it relates to making declarations to the Integrity Commission in its current form.
She told media operatives that she has requested a bevy of information on the Integrity Commission which would help to determine whether she as a first time Parliamentarian would make any such declarations.
Should the Parliamentarian not be satisfied with the responses, the MP says that she will not be making any declarations.
The ruling Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) and the political opposition have been at loggerheads for several years over declarations to the Integrity Commission with at least one piece of court litigation already lapsing.
”How could we have a place awash with corruption and a commission that does not function?” was the question asked by Dr. Roopnaraine, during a previous interview with this newspaper when he had originally questioned the usefulness of the Integrity Commission since it appeared that it has no capacity to investigate but rather to just receive reports.
According to Roopnaraine, there are numerous instances of persons in public offices amassing wealth which seems inconsistent with their earnings but the Integrity Commission has failed to undertake a forensic audit.
He believes that it is insufficient to have a Commission that is merely tasked with receiving reports of declarations but cannot investigate.
The Integrity Commission Act, Chapter 19:12 came into effect with the passage of the Integrity Commission Act No 20 of 1997.
The law provides for the establishment of a Commission to ensure probity in public life, particularly among elected officials and public officers entrusted with responsibilities by the State.
Under this Law, the designated public officials are required to submit annual returns of their assets and may be subjected to penalties if they fail to do so without reasonable cause.
Among the declarations that are required to be made are all gifts received by public officials and it is for the Integrity Commission to determine whether those gifts are personal, or whether they belong to the state. The only exceptions are gifts from relatives.
Dr. Roopnaraine told this publication yesterday that while the coalition is currently focused on Local Government Reform and a date for Local Government Elections the party will be addressing the issue of the legislation dealing with the Integrity Commission.
Dr. Roopnaraine says that any fixing of the Integrity Commission will have to be dealt with by amending the governing laws, but first the party must evaluate whether the Commission has ever even prevented any form of corruption or malfeasance by public officials.

---

---