The genesis of the Integrity Commission and the Public Procurement Commission

Mar 29, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A number of misleading statements and generalization were once peddled about the origins of both the Integrity Commission and the Public Procurement Commission. Amongst the gamut of misleading statements is the claim that it was corruption under the PPPC administration that led to the decision to have an Integrity Commission and a Public Procurement Commission.
This column seeks to correct some of the misleading statements being made about the genesis of these two bodies.
With respect to the Integrity legislation, an Integrity Commission Act was first passed under the Desmond Hoyte regime in 1991 following concerns about pervasive corruption under the PNC regime. In those days, things moved within sections of the bureaucracy in relation to the amount of grease applied. For almost all public services there were underhand dealings believed to be taking place.
In the face of concerns that reining in excesses by public officials with access to the public purse was fast becoming impossible, the Hoyte regime passed an Integrity Commission Act. This Bill was however seen as tepid and unable to curb the excesses taking place.
It never did. No one was ever indicted, sanctioned, investigated or prosecuted under that Act.
When the PPPC came into power in 1992, it attempted to place emphasis on a lean, clean and mean government. As part of this process, it revamped the Integrity Commission and appointed the then Anglican Bishop as the Chairman. This appointment was met with consternation by the Hoyte administration. The PNCR never recognized the Chairman of the Integrity Commission.
In 1997, the original Integrity Commission Act passed under the Hoyte administration was repealed and replaced by another one which was not too dissimilar.
The Integrity Commission is not a creature of the Constitution. It is a product of ordinary legislation. It goes far enough for any government to claim that it has integrity legislation in place but it remains like a pit-bull whose teeth has been extracted. The reforms being proposed by the APNU will not strengthen the Integrity Commission. It will bring greater suspicion on that body.
The Integrity Commission needs to be dissolved. It will not solve anything. All it will do is ensure that public officials and parliamentarians have a lot of paperwork to fill out each year. To depoliticize the integrity commission is like trying to appoint a GECOM Chairperson under the present criteria which is set by the President. It is a mission impossible.
Integrity commissions have not worked anywhere in the Commonwealth. They have ended being accused of engaging in political witch hunts. Guyana’s fraud and tax laws are good enough to allow the police and the Guyana Revenue Authority to prosecute those who obtain funds illicitly. We should not be establishing bureaucracies which will end up becoming dysfunctional.
The Public Procurement Commission, on the other hand, is a creature of the Constitution. And while many saw the corruption under the PPPC as being responsible for such a body, the establishment, at least in law, of the Public Procurement Commission had little to do with corruption.
To understand the genesis of the Public Procurement Commission one must go back to the Tokyo Round of trade talks in which it was recognized that government procurement represented a significant chunk of national procurement in developing and developed economies.
As a result, restrictive procurement policies by governments were seen as impacting negatively on international trade since foreign firms were precluded by restrictive regulations from competing for the supply of goods and services within both developed and developing countries.
As such in 1981, an Agreement on Government Procurement was developed with the aim of opening up government business to competition. Under the WTO, this agreement was upgraded and became effective in 1996.
In order to be compliant with this agreement, it was necessary for member countries of the World Trade Organization to liberalize the procurement of government goods and services and to institute a regime that would allow for competition, fairness and transparency in public procurement.
This is why Guyana, in 2003, passed the Public Procurement Act. This was necessary to be in compliance with the WTO rules, failing which it could have faced sanctions.
The lesson in all of this is this: do not expect that both bodies will reduce public corruption. The Integrity Commission is legislatively defective. It has no teeth and is not fully independent. The Public Procurement is more about transparency and fairness and competition than about preventing corruption.

---

---