The Integrity in Public Life Act attempted to address the perception, if not the fact, that corrupt practices were a normal feature of political life in T&T. Indeed, every election campaign includes claims that the “other” political party is guilty of abusing public office for unjust enrichment, almost a competition as to which is worse. This does nothing to advance the national interest. The unfortunate reality is that very few have been prosecuted and even fewer, successfully.
Because corruption is a clandestine activity, it is difficult to calculate its impact with precision. Published research by multilateral institutions suggests that corruption discourages investment, limits economic growth, and alters the composition of government spending, often to the detriment of future economic growth. These are good and valuable reasons for keeping the political system and people in high public office clean. Unsurprisingly, those who are subjected to the demands of integrity legislation often complain of its rigour.
It is difficult to think of an Integrity Commission which has not been embroiled in controversy at some point in its term of office. At times, politicians have expressed confidence in the commission when its decisions accord with their interests and are openly critical when it does not. Perhaps this indicates that the commission has been doing its job. Those anxious to limit its influence would not agree. There have also been mistakes. New institutions take time to settle in.
The success of any public institution is based on public confidence. The commission has been subjected to very public criticisms which have sought to undermine public confidence and thereby limit its effectiveness. The budget reductions limit the commission’s ability to effect its mandate and make it a toothless tiger. In the circumstances, asking the court to interpret certain sections of the Integrity Act is a sensible approach. It has the added benefit that it should reduce the friction between the commission and the Cabinet if the interpretation and direction come from the court and not the commission.
The commission’s newly appointed chairman does not have absolute authority to proceed on his own. Withdrawing the legal action so soon after his appointment requires us to ask if this was done with the agreement of the other commissioners who would have been party to the decision to initiate the matter. To do so without unanimous consensus would have been a hasty step suggesting bias or a premeditated action. Integrity commissioners are expected to function above the political fray, away from the influence of people in public life. They are expected to be impartial in investigating and addressing matters concerning these very people in the public’s interest. How is this action to be interpreted?
Before the appointment of the new chairman, the commission had announced its intention to issue ex parte orders against people in public life who failed to file their declaration and to institute criminal proceedings against those who ignored the ex parte order. Will the new chairman attempt to reverse this position?
The challenge is to ensure that independent bodies and their members remain independent with people of the requisite calibre and mettle to withstand political attack. Time will tell if this commission will withstand the pressures that accompany an election campaign. If not, we will have to keep looking for a few good men.