Ministers are subject to greater scrutiny

Dec 17, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Ministers must expect to be held to a higher standard of public scrutiny. They are the most senior and influential members of the Executive arm of the State, and as such, their private and personal affairs are liable to be subject to greater public inspection.
Ministers must have “thick skins”. Criticisms and unwarranted accusations are often thrown their way, most of which have no justifiable basis. The best defence against malicious allegations is not avoidance or denial, but a willingness to be subject to greater public scrutiny.
At present, charges are being made about a house which a Minister built. This is not the first time that this has happened and it will not be the last. The Minister can choose to ignore these charges or can be drawn into offering explanations which negate the allegations.
The minister should do neither. Those making the allegations have not presented a shred of direct evidence to justify their allegations. They have relied on circumstantial evidence.
This matter, however, is not just a personal matter. It is also a political issue which is not likely to go away and therefore, in the elections season, it is wise for the allegations to be laid to rest so that they do not incur any political liability on the part of the government.
The Coalition campaigned on a platform of promoting transparency in government. It promised zero tolerance for corruption and promised financial probity and accountability at all levels of Government. This obviously includes high office. Many have not been impressed with the Coalition’s resolve in these areas. And this is a chance to put things right in this regard. The present allegations swirling in the public domain can be used to put to rest some of the ugly aspersions cast at the Coalition’s commitment to transparency and financial probity.
The Coalition shot itself in the foot when it failed to keep its campaign promise to establish an Investigative Commission on Corruption within the first 100 days in government. The Investigative Commission on Corruption has fallen off the Coalition’s radar.
There is an opportunity now for the President to demonstrate the strength of his commitment to transparency in government. It is also an opportunity for him to bury what can be a malicious allegation against one of his Ministers. The Coalition can benefit by publicly disproving these charges, thereby showing the entire world that the government is lean, clean and transparent, as promised.
The government has no Investigative Commission to refer the matter to. As so that option is closed.
The next consideration would have been to refer the matter to the Integrity Commission. Unfortunately, the Integrity Commission is not empowered to investigate these sorts of matters.
The Integrity Commission is a mere depository of financial declarations by public officers, including Ministers. The only investigation which it can launch is if it has reason to believe that a false declaration was made. The present issue in the public domain has nothing to do with anyone making a false declaration of personal assets.
Another consideration is to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. But this too is no-go, because the Ombudsman looks into matters concerning maladministration and malfeasance in public administration which results in injury to members of the public. The present matter has nothing to do with maladministration and malfeasance.
The non-resort to any of the above options, points to the inadequacy of mechanisms to address allegations of unaccounted wealth acquisition. All the babble about fighting corruption in government is therefore plain poppycock.
The President, however, still has an obligation to act to put paid to any falsehoods being peddled against any of his Ministers. He should lay the present allegations to rest and embarrass those who are attempting to besmirch his government. He has caused to launched an investigation into the management of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, and therefore he can do the same when it comes to any of his Ministers.
In the case of an ordinary public official, any investigation should be based on a prima facie case being established. But in the case of holders of high public office, there is a need to ensure that even in the absence of a prima facie case, allegations are addressed completely and not ignored.
One way to do this in the present case is to appoint a forensic auditor to examine the building in question, establish what it would have cost to build it, and then decide whether the earnings plus savings plus any loans taken from the banks, could have built such a structure.
This is a one-week exercise whose value will be worth its value in gold for years to come. Over to Granger!

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---