Draft revised Code of Conduct still a bland document

Mar 19, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) considers the Draft Revised Code of Conduct an improvement over the original version but still too bland and generalized to serve as an effective guide to the ethical realities facing parliamentarians in Guyana. Our electoral system meets only the crudest tests having no constituencies, lacking gender balance, accountability to party leaders rather than electors and selection of MPs by party leaders. Ethnic polarization of politics further erodes the quality of parliamentary life.
In these circumstances, the GHRA would recommend an approach to developing a Code of Conduct that aims to constantly challenge all Ministers and office holders of their ethical duty to off-set the limitations and unconstitutional features of our political systems. Such a process would tend more in the direction of a detailed Code rather than reliance on general principles. Matters of confidential information and separation of government from political party business are not addressed at all effectively. In its Submission on the original Draft Code in October 2015, the GHRA had recommended with respect to the former that “The more effective way of insulating confidential information from unauthorized leaks is for the Government to enforce Public Service rules against employing party activists in senior Public Service positions.”
With respect to separating party and government business, the GHRA had recommended “The difficult area of where Government business ends and party business begins needs more rigorous treatment.” Much the best guide to relations between officials and staff, particularly with respect to what is appropriate and inappropriate regarding their engaging in political activity is the US Hatch Act which the GHRA provided in its original submission.
Unfortunately, the sub-Committee charged with revising the Draft Code seems to have lacked the diversity and weight required for a task of this nature. While reference is made to the list of Codes studied from other jurisdictions, no mention is made of domestic submissions received in the earlier round of consultation.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Specific comments below are sequenced according to the headings in the Revised Draft Code document.
Ten Principles of Public Life
Integrity: The proposed Code makes no reference whatever to declaration of assets. Only by reference to the requirements of the Integrity Commission contained under this Principle can any inference be drawn about assets. While legally this may be acceptable, the absence of explicit reference to this issue is peculiar, because in the public mind it is the raison d’etre of a Code of Conduct.
We propose that the Code explicitly address Declaration of Assets.
Discrimination
In view of the attempt to be exhaustive in listing the grounds of discrimination the absence of ‘sexual orientation’ appears not to be an oversight. The GHRA proposes it be included.
Article 8 – Sexual Misconduct
The GHRA finds sub-paragraph (1) unacceptable in its entirety. Sexual harassment and offensive sexual conduct constitute unacceptable behavior under any circumstances, not limited to ‘during the performance of his or her official duties’. Indeed, we would propose the following formulation:
Any Person in public life may be liable to prosecution under Section 23(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2009 pertaining to ‘inducement, threat or deception’ who:
(1) engages in comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature or any other such offensive conduct of this kind; or
(2) pursues a course of conduct by which he or she exploits his/her position or authority for sexual gratification.
Article 12 – Breach of Code
This Section is generally unsatisfactory and excessively deferential to the President. In light of recent experience in Guyana, exclusion of the President from any oversight with respect to his observance of the Code leaves the Code vulnerable to ridicule.
In as much as the Integrity Commission is the logical body to exercise a monitoring function over the Code of Conduct, the Act is flawed in discriminating against persons who are not members of religious organizations in its selection of Commissioners. This issue is further complicated by the growing practice of selecting religious leaders to occupy Parliamentary seats. In light of these difficulties the GHRA would favour lodging responsibility for enforcing the Code of Conduct with the Ombudsperson. Rather than a range of sanctions appropriate to the nature of the breach, the revised Code limits sanctions only to “the person in public life may be removed from office”, encouraging the notion that a lesser breach may be overlooked.
Executive Committee
Guyana Human Rights Association

---

---