So when we take a serous look at our condition are we not giving the Ombudsman an impossible task?

How is he or she and the institution he/she represents going to improve accountability, transparency, good governance and consideration for human rights?

I did not come here to dampen your spirits. But I did come to make the point that all our constitutions in the region need drastic overhaul. And within the framework of a new constitutional order any institution which is charged with carrying out the role and responsibility of investigating a complaint against those who administer government, should have strength and teeth; and considered recommendations to remedy injustice should be enforceable.

The principal function of the Ombudsman is the investigation of complaints from citizens against government departments and institutions but even if the Ombudsman does the best job, how effective can he be?

But this is not only a globalizing world of interconnectivity where the best and the worst of what humanity is capable of is unavoidable. It is also a post

Public integrity assessments tools usually aim to assess There are only a few integrity assessments tools that have been implemented to rate public official integrity and ethics in countries across the globe such as integrity tests for pre-employment screening, integrity testing, and life-style checks. At the institutional level, integrity assessment tools are more commonly used at the institutional level to assess the role, capacity and/or effectiveness of specific anticorruption related institutions, such as anti-corruption agencies or internal oversight and regulatory bodies within public sector agencies. Assessments also aim to identify the preconditions for corruption which exist in a particular institutions as well as the actual incidence of corruption drawing on the understanding and experiences of public officials.

1 Overview of public sector integrity assessment tools Overview Public integrity assessments tools usually aim at assessing the institutional framework for promoting integrity and combating corruption across the public sector, and/or at identifying corruption or corruption risks within specific government agencies and/or The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is a corruption-free nation with a high moral tone, where persons in public life are respected because of their integrity. Mission Statement The Integrity Commission of Trinidad and Tobago will lead in promoting integrity, reducing corruption and increasing legal compliance among persons in public life, so that public resources are used fairly and for the benefit of all people of our nation.

THE ISSUES: To achieve this mandate Farrell briefed participants on the issues and challenges as the Integrity Commission rolls out its three strategic policy objectives, namely:1. Actions Against Corruption Investigations of corruption take a long time to complete and are conducted so that the investigative process could withstand scrutiny in a Court of Law. Investigations by nature rely heavily on foreign forensic investigators and it is necessary now to develop a cadre of locally trained professionals to strengthen the organisational capacity of the Integrity Commission. 2. Promoting an institutional/organisational culture of openness, transparency and accountability The Commission, as part of its mandate to examine the practices and procedures in public organisations/agencies, instructs and advises on best practices and procedures that may be necessary to reduce the occurrence of whatever corrupt practices have been discovered. 3. Inducing and Exemplifying Integrity in Public Life Realistic cultural change will need to start with the schoolage population. The Commission hopes to tackle this challenge through the national school curriculum. The

Ministry of Education has been approached and Mr. Farrell told Conference delegates it is the expectation that the Commissions message be delivered by trained teachers. 4. Spreading the message Corruption crosses international borders and in exploring avenues for exchanges, the Integrity Commission has developed links with the Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute - the local chapter of Transparency International as well as with regional integrity commissions. CHALLENGES The major challenge facing the Integrity Commission is a culture of complacency and acceptance of corruption by some citizens, although there is a growing and welcome intolerance. The less troubling challenge is the existence of close and cosy ties between the regulatory institutions Government Ministries/Departments and the State Enterprises and the apparent failure of some to realise that conflict of interest and weak oversight issues sometimes occur.
Anti-Corruption Initiatives of the Integrity Commission Prevention The Integrity Commission is required to receive financial declarations Declaration of Income, Assets and Liabilities from persons in public life. These declarations are examined by the Commission for unexplained

accretion in wealth. A Statement of Registrable Interests a separate document - is available for public scrutiny. The filing of declarations and the examination of the Register are seen as anti-corruption initiatives. Investigations The Integrity Commission is empowered to examine the procedures and practices of public bodies and experience has resulted in the altering of behaviour by some which have operated with arbitrary, unknown or shrouded policies. The Commissions intervention has resulted in more open and transparent policies. Enforcement The Integrity Commission has the right, under the Integrity in Public Life Act, to approach the Courts to seek the imposition of sanctions for persons in public life who fail to file declarations and those who fail to co-operate with the Commissions investigations. Public Education and Enlistment of Pubic Support Public education initiatives, the Register of Interests, the Code of Conduct and the document Principles of Integrity for persons in Pubic Life and persons exercising public functions have become useful in educating public officials on their roles, responsibilities and adherence to good governance, ethics and leadership.

What is Integrity?
When someone is said to be a person of Integrity it is generally understood that he or she is considered to have a strong moral character. Integrity is one of the most important virtues a person can possess. To have Integrity a person must not only be honest and sincere but have strong moral principles. The dictionary defines Integrity as: The quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness,

honesty, and sincerity. A concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes. In a history of the word, "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, suggests that Integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. It is regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold. The Integrity in Public Life Act which establishes the Integrity Commission contains a Code of Conduct that functions to regulate the behaviour of all Persons in Public Life and persons exercising public functions. The Code of Conduct promotes predictability and ethical standards in the performance of duty for all those charged with carrying out public functions. Thus, public officials in Trinidad and Tobago are required to treat all persons even-handedly, not just the members of a particular group. The critical outcome of this behaviour is that any member of the public, who accesses a Government service, must receive the same treatment regardless of his or her ethnicity, age, sex, perceived social standing or political affiliation.

the detection of bribes

disguised as legitimate expenses intended to be used to obtain tax benefits criminal liability for companies that pay bribes the establishment of "front companies" whose purpose is to commit acts of corruption the defense of "professional secrets" which serves as an obstacle to denouncing corruption. the classification of illicit enrichment of public servants, a key issue for the e_ective punishment of corruption, and extradition for crimes of corruption.

The vision of the Integrity Commission is to make Trinidad and Tobago a corruption-free nation with a high moral tone where persons in public life are respected because of their integrity and not because of their status and social standing. Farrell reaffirmed the Integrity Commissions mandate to encourage good governance and eliminate corrupt practices among public officials in Trinidad and Tobago.

REFERENCES

Get a copy of relevant pieces of literature on the Integrity Commission (the Act and other documents and guidelines). Review legislature and its impact. Questions to answer: Has the legislation achieved its objectives? What is the result of the legislation? How effective has it been?

These have been discussed in the newspapers daily and in the electronic media. There is also a newsletter that the IC publishes.

Look at the last five commissions and the personnel manning it. Look at the qualifications and skills and experience of those appointed. Make a summary on how you would distribute these persons over the last commissions. Also look at the ages of the persons and comment on such.

Added to note: there must always be a lawyer (check the Act).

Discuss how extensive the act is regarding personnel.

Integrity Commission
2012-02-15

History Established by the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago in 1976, The Integrity Commission of Trinidad and Tobago is an autonomous body that seeks to promote integrity as a foundational element of Trinidad & Tobago society.

Function The major role and function of the Commission can be summed up in four key points: Prevention Investigation Enforcement Education and Enlistment of public support The Commission seeks to promote integrity, particularly amongpersons in public lifefrom the level of Ministers of Government and Members of Parliament to Permanent Secretaries, Chief Technical Officers and members of the Boards of Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises. The Commission is required to regulate the conduct ofpersons exercising public functions

through the receipt of declarations of income, assets and liabilities, and by monitoring compliance with the Code of Conduct presented in Part IV of the Integrity in Public Life Act, 2000.The Commission is responsible for examining the practices and procedures of public bodies in order to facilitate discovery of corrupt practices. Public education to foster an understanding of integrity among the wider community in Trinidad and Tobago is a key responsibility of the Commission.

Structure 1The Integrity Commission consists of a Chairman, Deputy Chairman and three other members who shall be persons of integrity and high standing. 2At least one member of the Commission shall be an attorney-at-law of at least ten years experience. 3At least one member of the Commission shall be a chartered or certified accountant. 4The Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. 5A person shall not be qualified to hold office as a member of the Commission where he is a person in public life or a person exercising a public function or a person who is not a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. 6Three members of the Commission of whom one shall be the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, shall constitute a quorum.

Achievement In June 2010, the Integrity Commission recommended that the DPP conduct a criminal probe into former prime minister Patrick Manning and a former minister of science, technology, and tertiary education regarding the awarding of a radio license to a political supporter.
http://www.iaaca.org/AntiCorruptionAuthorities/ByCountriesandRegions/T/RepublicofTrinidadandTobag o/201202/t20120215_805357.shtml

Distract and Discredit

Posted on June 15, 2013 by The Pantomime

Ever since the last Motion of No Confidence wherein Keith Rowley revealed the possibility of an exchange of emails between 3 senior government officials and their favourite lap dog, Kamlas Fete Match Side has been in Distract and Discredit Mode..going at Full Dotish pace too. The discovery that Rowley and chairman of the IC had a twenty-minute meeting at Gordons private home to discuss whether or not Emailgate was a matter before the IC has played itself nicely into the governments hands as yet another tool to discredit the validity of the alleged emails; and now, to discredit the IC and perhaps avoid going the route of an independent investigation. And while they arent in the wrong to question the occurrence of the meeting, the irony of this government querying private meetings is too rich. And its so obvious that their tactic will now be to use this meeting to avoid what the public and Opposition has been clamouring for: an independent investigation.

It didnt take the AG more than a hot minute after Roodal Moonilals announcement of the

The AG.. meeting in Parliament complete with side (and snide) comments from the PM egging him on to imply that Chairman Ken Gordon was compromised. And if you have followed the fate of this Integrity Commission it is always mired in mud and controversy.from inception. The Government knows well that the country has little faith in it; and further that UNC supporters will use any excuse to blame and label anyone and anything as PNM..and so, a private meeting about a public matter between the Opposition Leader and the chairman of the IC takes on a particularly questionable face.

You would think that seasoned men and politicians like Rowley and Gordon would be incapable of what is obviously a very rookie move. Youd also think that Rowley, fully aware of how the last Prime Minister shot himself in the foot would avoid moves

that so remind one of Patrick Manning for its abject carelessness. You would think too that Rowley by now would realise that because he is a very black Tobagonian (yes, I said itthere is a lot of colour prejudice involved here where Rowley is concerned) he is always held up to a different and much higher standard by both PNM supporters and the rest of the country. It is unfortunate, but that is the truth of it.

You would also think too that UNC supporters and Government ministers would have less to say about public meetings being kept in private homes when: 1. Cabinet Meetings are held in the Prime Ministers home regularly. 2. The last emergency meeting to determine what happened to a Government Minister and MP was held in the Prime Ministers home. 3. The State of Emergency was announced from the PMs private home. 4. Budgets announcements are made from UNC political rally stages 5. The Prime Minister a public official works from her home and keeps sensitive and important public material there.

For the last 3 years protocol and good sense have been tossed to the wind, and because there is no Constitutional law that prevents it, the Prime Minister has gotten away with administrative murder. Mind you, Gordon and the IC ensured there was an aide memoire that recorded the meeting. I wonder if we ever get minutes of Kamlas private Cabinet meetings? The AGs hounding of the Integrity Commissions Chairman today will have an impact on Emailgate. Two days ago the AG announced rather loudly that he was recusing himself from Emailgate. He was handing over the investigation to the Central Authority, a body that falls within his Office of the Attorney General and headed by Netram Kowlessar. The AG has pointed out that the Central Authority is independent. My concern now is how independent is Kowlessar: a man who first shot to public attention as a member of the Anti-Kidnapping Squad in 2002, thereafter became a defence attorney and after a handful of cases was appointed by this regime as the head of the Central Authority. Im concerned. I hope in his case it was merit and not cronyism that got him the job. Having now raised questions about the integrity of Ken Gordon and the independence of the Commission itself, I feel quite certain that any call for an independent investigation into Emailgate by an Integrity Commission will be shot down by the AG and his government using this meeting as the reason. I continue to maintain that the only thing that will lay Emailgate to rest is an independent investigation that allows us to get at DIGITAL filesbut in the meantime we do have a byelection in Chaguanas West to entertain and distract us, not so?

De Vice Cyah Done! About these ads

Share this:

Share

Like this: Like Loading...

Posted in Crime, Daily Politics | Tagged Anand Ramlogan, attorney General Anand Ramlogan,Corruption, Crime, emailgate, Emailgate Scandal, Integrity Commission, Jack Warner, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Keith Rowley, Ken Gordon, Section 34 | 4 Comments

Acting With Integrity

Posted on May 3, 2013 by The Pantomime

The Integrity in Public Life Act will turn 13 in November of this year. Most of us view the Act and the Integrity Commission as useless. The average citizen thinks the purpose of the IC is to find out the assets of persons functioning in public life and to publish an annual list of those public officials who have transgressed the law. Indeed, the Integrity Commission has done little to dispel that public perception of its duties. The opening sentences of the Act states that the Commissions purpose is to provide for public disclosure, to regulate the conduct of persons exercising public functions; to preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions What many of us dont know is that the Integrity Commission has real teeth. Their duties dont just stop at publishing a list of miscreants and submitting a report to the Senate every year. Their power reaches far beyond financial disclosure. The folks over at the Integrity Commission can scrutinise any person in public life or exercising public functions. This includes the Prime Minister, the AG, Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, members of state boards, and persons working in the Public Service, Judicial and

Legal Service, Police Service, Teaching service, Statutory Authorities Service Commission, Diplomatic Service and Advisers to the Government. If you re-read that list slowly and digest its importance you will realise that the Integrity Commission has oversight of the activities of so many sectors of our country that if the Commission was properly staffed and working efficiently it should, theoretically, be able to root out a lot of the corruption and inefficiency prevalent in our society.

Further examination of the Act reveals that an investigation by the Integrity Commission could lead to more than just your name being published in the newspapers. There is a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars attached to the offence of non-declaration of assets. As a person in public life, you also have to declare the assets and liabilities of your spouse and dependent children; and if you holding money or property in trust for another person you have to declare the trust, though not the specific details. Page 15 of the Integrity in Public Life Act has a long list of interests and must be declared. You have items such as contracts made with the state; companies or partnerships in which the person

is an investor; beneficiary interest in any land; particulars relating to sources of income; and anything else that might cause conflict between private interests and public duties. Are you wondering where I am going with this? Think Jack Warner, his spouse, their children, his assets and many affiliations that might be in conflict with his public life. Mr Warner has been serving in public life since November 5th, 2007. His activities as a member of the Caribbean Football Union, Concacaf and FIFA are public knowledge. Since becoming a member of government in 2010 there have been allegations and speculations hovering over Warner. We have an Integrity Commission in Trinidad and Tobago that is at least a decade old. Why did it take a report from Concacaf to unearth information that Warner has been less than forthcoming about his business interests and financial transactions dating back from 2006? Back in November 2012 there was a local newspaper report indicating Warner was the subject of a probe by the IC. Fixin TnTs Kirk Waithe has been at the forefront of calls for Warner to be investigated based on discrepancies with public monies. In his complaint to the IC, Waithe pointed out funds being transferred from the Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation into private accounts, and the transfers were often in the range of millions of dollars. Millions of dollars of public monies that we still await accountability on. And mind you, these discrepancies happened under a PNM regime; not UNC or PP. So we cant even claim that it is Warners cronies who might be protecting him or smoothing the way. When questioned about the nature of the probe, Martin Farrell, the Registrar of the IC, responded saying: The Integrity Commission is not in a position to comment on your request. As you will appreciate, having regard to the nature of its mandate under the Integrity in Public Life Act, the Commission is required to treat with all matters with the utmost confidentiality.

Fast forward now to April, 2013, in the aftermath of the report from Concacafs Integrity Committee and there is still a deafening silence from the various bodies and authorities here. The last we heard from the DPP on the matter of Warner, the police had been instructed to look into whether Warner had breached Customs and Excise laws. The probe by the AG into Warner seems to have stalled. And the Integrity Commission remains as enigmatic as ever. Saying little, but alluding to an ongoing probe that has thus far yielded little satisfaction to the public. After reading the Concacaf Report you have to ask yourself what exactly is the problem with us here that we can have so many institutions and systems in place, and have them constantly fail us. Why is investigating Warner and making him answerable to the public so difficult? Why does an Integrity Commission, enacted with so much power on paper, often seem so weak? When exactly are these bodies responsible for public oversight actually going to start earning their keep? Or are we going to have to launch a probe not just into Warner, but into the integrity of our Commissions? We spinning top in mud in this place.Full Dotish Mode!
http://eternalpantomime.com/tag/integrity-commission/

Integrity threat from the Appeal Court

On 27th June the Appeal Court ruled that

TSTT is not a State Enterprise. The members of its Board are not subject to the Integrity Provisions. It is only the members of the Boards of those Statutory Bodies which exercise public functions that are subject to the jurisdiction of the (Integrity) Commission.

Telecommunications Company of Trinidad & Tobago (TSTT) is a company established between the T&T State and the British-based multinational, Cable & Wireless. C&W holds 49% of the shares in TSTT, while the State holds about 42% of the shares together with the right to nominate 5 of its 9 Directors. That unanimous ruling has serious consequences for the viability of our nations integrity framework. The intended purpose of that framework is to ensure a satisfactory level of transparency and accountability in the way Public Money is transacted and Public Functions are discharged. There is still a strong case for this Integrity Framework as a necessary ingredient in the Good Governance of our nation. The Integrity Framework includes the Auditor General; the Integrity Commission; the Investments Division of the Ministry of Finance and the two Parliamentary Accounts Enterprises Committees. Ours is the most vibrant Caribbean economy and the State is clearly the largest player, so the proper management of that sector is critical. Given the continuing rise in the waste and theft of Public Money, there will always be a need for an improved, more effective Integrity Framework to oversee these huge, controversial operations.

The Appeal arose from the 2005 case, in which TSTT sought an interpretation from the Court as to the

meaning of the phrase in the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA), defining persons in public life (9) Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest TSTT was seeking a decision as to whether that definition applied to its Directors and the High Court ruled in October 2007 that those Directors were included in the provisions of the IPLA. TSTTs Directors were trying to escape the obligations of the Integrity Act, but the High Court ruled that the clear intention of the IPLA was to include those Directors. This lawsuit was from a Company which is controlled and majority-owned by the State. It is indicative of a deep; one might almost say native, hostility to the very notion of transparency, but more on that later. TSTT and the Integrity Commission appealed that ruling in 2008 and the hearings were completed in mid-2010. The BG View of 4 July by Anthony Wilson makes a pointed critique of that judgment along the line of demarcating just what constitutes State Control. Also, Andre Bagoos article in Newsday on Sunday 7th July notes the Courts weak reasoning on the issue of Dire ct vs. Indirect control. In my view, the most perturbing aspect of the judgment was its overall tone, which seemed hostile to the notion that the obligations of Public Officials should properly include these elementary transparency provisions. At no point does the Court express an appreciation for the important and necessary role of the Integrity Commission. Instead, there are several pointed statements that the Court views the obligations of Public Officials to the Integrity Commission as burdensome.

TSTT

The first limb of the judgment, finding TSTT not to be a State Enterprise, is a remarkable exercise which should be required reading for students of public administration, political science and law. To begin with, Para 13 One example of the lack of a free hand of the Government was the fact that under the Shareholders Agreement, the Board of Directors of TSTT was to be comprised of nine Directors, five appointed by the Government this completely fails to acknowledge that this provision

places control in Govt hands. A binding agreement which allows one party to appoint the majority of the Directors in a Company is one which gives effective control to that party, in the absence of other limiting provisions. None such were mentioned. It is literally incredible that our Appeal Court could cite this provision to support the contention that the State did not control TSTT. Also in that para none of the four C&W Directors was resident in Trinidad & Tobago Also, para 16 refers to this as being an odd and probably unintended consequence of the Integrity Act Is the Court of Appeal signalling that Directors of State Enterprises who may be resident overseas ought to be exempted from the IPLA? If so, this obiter dicta tells me that our Appeal Court is resistant to the proper and full transparency which the IPLA was undoubtedly aiming for. The Court identifies two tests as to the control of a company de jure, which examines legal control and de facto, which examines the factual control. At Para 30 the Court states that the de facto test will only be applied in cases of naked attempts to avoid the Integrity Provisions, then goes on to state at para 31 Further, given the uncontested evidence, there are no exceptional circumstances here which call for the application of the de facto or factual test of control to be applied . TSTTs application, from what one can read in this judgment, was not being challenged by the Integrity Commission, since they were themselves trying to limit their remit. That this submission survived the case uncontested is only evidence of the extent to which the interests of the parties to this litigation were aligned, it says nothing of the actual quality of the submission. But the TSTT litigation must have been intended to achieve just what it did, to legally escape the provisions of the IPLA by obtaining a Court ruling, without the de facto test being applied. In my view, the TSTT litigation was therefore exactly, as the Court stated a naked attempt to avoid the Integrity Provisions.

So we have an Independent Commission appealing to limit its own remit and the very same Court displaying its scepticism towards the very purpose of that Commission.

The two, taken together, taste toxic.

Statutory Bodies
The second limb of this judgment was on the Commissions challenge to the part of the ruling of the High Court judge which would have placed Directors of all organisations established by statute under the purview of the Integrity provisions. That makes sense, since the literal interpretation applied by the Judge in the 2005 case would have included Directors of all organisations or bodies established by statute. That would have included Private Bodies and the legislature could not have intended that. The Commission applied to the Appeal Court for an interpretation of this phrase which limits its application to members of the board of statutory bodies which are public in nature and/or which exercise public functions and/or functions on behalf of the State. Statutory Bodies are created by statute i.e. HDC, WASA, TTEC, Port Authority, Airport Authority and so on so State Enterprises are not Statutory Bodies. That proposal to remove State Enterprises from Integrity Commission oversight is incredible, all the more so since it emanated from the very Integrity Commission.

To make a bad situation worse, the Appeal Court went beyond the limits of that application and imposed further limitations on the remit of the Integrity Commission.

Public Function
There is a great deal of debate on just where is the boundary between public and private functions. This debate is still largely unsettled, since in certain countries even traditionally public sector services like health, defence or education have now been outsourced. What was once strictly-defined as public function is now greatly reduced over what it was a few decades ago. Hence the introduction of this phrase Statutory Bodies which exercise public functions into this judgment imposes further limits on the jurisdiction of the Commission.

In my view, a function which is routinely performed by the private sector cannot be called a public one. For instance, neither Caribbean Airlines nor FCB perform public functions. That is the peril with which this judgment confronts us.

Both parties effectively received favourable rulings, so there was no appeal filed within the 6-week deadline. This peculiar and unsatisfactory situation calls for an exceptional intervention to preserve the Public Interest.

Integrity Threat: Part 2 & 3

Posted by AfraRaymond in Corruption, Politics and Public Affairs, Public Procurement Reform on September 13, 2013

The previous column discussed the Appeal Court judgment in #30 of 2008, in which both TSTT and the Integrity Commission sought to challenge the High Court ruling in #1735 of 2005. That High Court ruling found that the phrase contained at para 9 of the Schedule to the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) was to be taken as read to define those people who are subject to its provisions 9. Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.

The Appeal Court comprising CJ Archie, together with Mendonca JA and Smith JA ruled that CONCLUSION
54. TSTT is not a State Enterprise. The members of its Board are not subject to the Integrity Provisions. 55. It is only the members of the Boards of those Statutory Bodies which exercise public functions that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

No appeals were filed against that ruling, so the law at this time is that Directors of State Enterprises are now exempt from the provisions of the IPLA. The Appeal Court has now removed all 59 State Enterprises from the scrutiny of the Integrity Commission.

To my mind, the competing interests to be reconciled in this case would have had to be the Public Officials seeking to escape full scrutiny and the Public Interest in maintaining that scrutiny. The Appeal Court judgment made no mention of the Public Interest. None that I could find.

Gross misbehaviour in Public Office has become our new normal, so it is disturbing to wonder what lies ahead in this scenario. State Enterprises consume about half of the Capital Expenditure in our budgets, yet we now have a lawful ruling which exempts them from the Integrity Commission.

It is lawful, but simply cannot be right.

It is vital to take the time to re-trace the steps in this matter to determine who is who and what is what.

The Integrity Commission achieved its full, modern shape from the reforms of 2000, done when Ramesh Lawrence-Maharaj was the AG in the then UNC administration.

TSTT was applying to the Court to escape the Integrity provisions, while the Integrity Commission was seeking to reduce its own remit. The IC was seeking to limit its remit to members of the board of statutory bodies which are public in nature and/or which exercise public functions and/or functions on behalf of the State.

The AG represents the interests of the State in legal challenges of this nature, so it is instructive to consider the positions adopted during this important case. At para 43 of the Appeal Court ruling it seems that there was an accord between the AG and The Integrity Commission, both seeking to effectively remove State Enterprises from the Commissions oversight -

The Commission and the Attorney General suggest that the phrase should apply to those Statutory Bodies which are public in nature in that they exercise public functions and/or functions on behalf of the State or of the Executive

Clearly, from that summary of the part ies respective positions and the judgment itself, the Integrity Commissions oversight of State Enterprises was no longer a priority.

Those hearings were in the period 2008 to the end of June 2010.

The entire Integrity Commission resigned in February 2009 after a High Court ruling please insert the link to that ruling herehttp://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJud/Judgments/HC/rlee/2009/CV_07_00185DD03Feb09.pdf in the case brought by Dr. Keith Rowley to challenge their actions against him. The High Court ruled that the Commission had exhibited misfeasance in public office. One of the shockers which emerged during that episode is that in 2004 the Commissions then Chairman, Gordon Deane, compromised its required independence by writing to then PM Manning to seek his instructions in that matter see para 45 (i) of that ruling. Those resigning Commissioners, who had served since 2006, were John Martin (Chairman); Monica Barnes (Deputy Chairman); Peter Clarke and Vindar-Dean Mohammed. It seems that the interests of the Government, the State and the assumedly-independent Integrity Commission had become tragically commingled, to our collective detriment. As I wrote in July 2011 In early 2009 we witnessed an attempt by the then PNM government to amend the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) so that people reporting breaches of that Act would have been forced to give their names and addresses. That arrangement would have given even greater protection to corrupt officials, since virtually no-one would want to make a report. Of course people are strongly encouraged to report normal crime like rape, robbery, murder and so on further encouragement is offered by allowing them to make anonymous reports via 800-TIPS, for example. Those proposals to amend the IPLA would have encouraged corrupt behaviour by reducing the reports.

That Bill was piloted by then Attorney-General, Bridget Annisette-George. The proposals were strongly opposed in the Parliament and in the wider society, eventually being withdrawn. One of the strongest protestors in the Parliamentary debate was Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, who was reported to have accused the government of trying to intimidate people into not making reports. [Hansard of 1 May 2009 p.441] On that occasion, the Standing Orders were used by Colm Imbert, to curtail Gopeesinghs presentation. [p.455]

Mrs. Annisette-George served as AG from November 2007 to the end of May 2009.

This is no attempt to lay blame at the feet of any individual Public Official, the responsibility for this state of affairs is widespread and that is the scale of the problem. The current AG, Anand Ramlogan SC, did not appeal this Appeal Court ruling. I do not know if there were grounds for an appeal, but I am starting to tell myself that this lawful exemption of Directors of State Enterprises is a development which is broadly popular amongst our rulers. This episode raises an uncomfortable question What are the true intentions of our leadership class in respect of proper transparency?

Apart from the remit of the Integrity Commission, one wonders how this ruling will impact upon associated areas of law, such as the Freedom of Information Act and of course, the impending Public Procurement reforms.

When we consider this judgment and its serious implications alongside the Integrity Commissions 2012 Report, even more sobering concerns emerge. One of the features of Gordons Chairmanship at the Commission has been an active campaig n to review the IPLA so as to increase its effectiveness.

To quote from the Chairmans Remarks A Strategic Plan (2012 2015) has been developed and is well advanced in its implementation. Most helpful was the Public Consultation to review the Integrity in Public Life Act Consistent with its mandate the Commission has also embarked on the examination of State Enterprises and Statutory Authorities

The Commissions proposals for 2013 include extending its remit to include
Chief Executives of all State Enterprises, Statutory Bodies, Municipal Corporations and Enterprises that are partially or wholly funded by the State

Special and Technical Advisers to Ministers(p. 37)

Is it possible to gather the political will to change this law? What is the position of our political parties on this matter?

This sequence seems to be an example of the detrimental events which can occur when fundamental policy shifts are done without any consultation i.e. policy creation by stealth. If the Integrity Commission was intent on altering its remit in that dramatic fashion, the public should have been given an opportunity to make its views known. If the government at that time, or this, was of the considered view that these changes were in the nations interest, they could have tried to persuade the public. The entire legal matter was in open Court, so there was no stealth, in the true sense of that word, but nonetheless the Public Interest has been severely compromised. The Integrity Commission must formally and promptly make a case for this bad law to be changed.

There is strong Public Interest in maintaining proper oversight on all bodies which transact Public Money or discharge a Public Function. Given the ongoing levels of corruption, our Integrity Framework needs to be seriously strengthened. Conversely, any moves to dilute that Integrity Framework need to be identified and resisted. The Appeal Court ruling on 27 June means that State Enterprises have now been exempted from the oversight of the Integrity Commission. The Directors of State Enterprises no longer have to submit declarations of their income, assets & liabilities to the Commission. To name only a few of the betterknown State Enterprises out of the total of 59 Lake Asphalt Co. Ltd., CNMG, National Quarries Co. Ltd., PETROTRIN, NP, FCB, MTS, UDECOTT, NIDCO, E-Teck, National Gas Company, EMBD, EFCL, Caribbean Airlines Ltd.

What outcomes can we expect from this detrimental decision? It is likely that more State Enterprises will be created. More people will want to serve in State Enterprises and of course fewer will be willing to serve in Statutory Bodies. After all, if it is possible to give national service and reveal none of your private financial business, that is going to be the preferred option. Of course, more expenditure will be channeled via the State Enterprises. A significant reduction in standards of accountability and transparency. A serious increase in corruption.

The shift is as critical as it is detrimental, so it is important to delve into just how this scandalous situation happened. I am saying that this result was intentionally engineered by a calibre of person to whom we have traditionally given our trust.

This is a critical case to illustrate the betrayal of the Public Interest by self-serving and short-sighted gatekeepers. Given that the IC is a constitutionally-Independent body, this is an object lesson in how our systems can be manipulated. The case I am making is that the previous PNM administration was seeking to limit the remit and effectiveness of the Integrity Commission. To undermine the Commission it was important to weigh the odds. A direct move to close it would have been too expensive politically, so a twin-track attack was mounted.

Above, I touched on the PNMs May 2009 proposal to amend the IPLA so as to greatly reduce reports of corruption. Those proposals were withdrawn in the face of tremendous opposition. It seems to me that this 2008 Appeal was the second part of the attack, used to achieve the same aims of severely limiting the Integrity Commission.

TSTT, which is our largest non-energy State Enterprise, agreed at Board level to seek to repudiate the authority of the Integrity Commission. That 2005 High Court Action was a clear act in defiance of the established Integrity Framework. Since the AG must be notified of these lawsuits, it would have immediately come to the notice of the Cabinet. For Cabinet to have left that Board unscathed is indicative of its agreement with the intended outcome. TSTTs Board Directors did not want to submit declarations to the Commission and the Cabinet let them mount two legal challenges to the Integrity Commissions jurisdiction.

That is TSTT, but what about the Integrity Commission?

In the 2005 High Court case, the Commission was seeking an interpretation of the definition clause in the Schedule to the IPLA -

9.

Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest.

That part of the IPLA defines just who are persons in public life and the focus of the Commissions 2005 application seemed to be the question of just how widely the term Statutory Bodies should be read.

There was a most significant shift in the Commissions 2008 Appeal, in that the probing of that definition clause had now morphed into an application for the Court to effectively remove State Enterprises from the Commissions oversight. So, how did the Commission make this shift, from the reasonable 2005 application to the 2008 one, which is tantamount to abandoning its fundamental duties? This was a quiet, undeclared shift, but there was one further safeguard in that the AG ought to have represented the States interest.

The AGs position coincided with the Commissions, as per para 43 of the Appeal Court ruling. Those two parties made identical applications which were indicative of an agreement to remove IC oversight from State Enterprises. The point being that even if the Appeal Court ruled that TSTT was a State Enterprise, the second limb of the ruling, that the Commissions oversight was limited to Statutory Bodies, was the manufactured escape-hatch.

One would think that an Institution which is dedicated to promoting Integrity in Public Life would require the most serious reflection before taking deliberate action to remove State Enterprises from its oversight. To my mind, such a proposed shift would need to be communicated to the Public and those views considered.

The Commissions Annual Report is the official means by which it communicates its achievements over the preceding year and outlines its main proposals for the coming year. The IPLA requires that the Commissions Annual Reports are to be submitted to Parliament by 31 March of the succeeding year. The 2008 Annual Report notes, without explanation, the major shift which the Commission was seeking in its 2008 appeal -

The expression Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest means, the members of the decision -making body of bodies established by statute which bodies are public in nature in that they exercise public functions and/or functions on behalf of the State or the Executive (pg 8).

The 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports were filed late, on 31 March 2010, so there was no chance for the general public to know about these proposed changes before the appeal was filed. The very reporting system which should have been used to advise the public of its activities and proposals was silent at the

critical moment. One can only wonder what persuaded the Commission to actively, discreetly, seek to exempt State Enterprises.

According to its 2008 Annual Report, the members of the Commission were John Martin (Chairman); Monica Barnes (Deputy Chairman); Peter Clarke; Vindar Dean-Maharaj; Brian Nicholson (who passed away during his term as a Commissioner) and Sooknath Basdeo Lackhan. Those Commissioners were appointed in 2006, except for the last member who was appointed in 2008.

All of that, with no public notice or discussion from either the Executive or the Integrity Commission.

All the parties were public bodies of one type or another, so the entire legal process was paid for with Public Money, yet the Public Interest seems to have been sidelined.

The nature and extent of the zones of agreement between our political parties always seem to outweigh any difference in policy, which in any case often appears to be really slight. Despite the constant rumours of racial and class plots between and within the various political forces in our country, it is this capacity for undeclared alliances which seems to be the more insidious and toxic element. The fact that the Peoples Partnership government has not appealed this judgment shows their agreement with the outcome.

That is the big picture and it is a grim one.

Integrity Threat Part 4

I am fully in support of a vigorous and conscientious Integrity Commission (IC). I do not want to see the IC abolished or sidelined. The IC must realign its limited resources to ensure a decisive impact on the conduct of Public Officials. The proposals contained in its 2012 Annual Report show clearly that the Gordon Commission has started to seriously grapple with that challenge. The derailment of the IC between 2004 and 2009 is a clear example of what can happen to an Independent Commission if we do not maintain vigilant oversight.

This matter is of the greatest interest for those of us campaigning for Public Procurement reform so as to get effective control over all transactions in Public Money. The arrangements we are proposing include new Independent Commissions/Officeholders. It is therefore critical that we learn the lessons from this debacle so as to safeguard the bodies we are proposing. The stakes are very high for our nations Integrity Framework, which must be strengthened, with swifter resolution of allegations. To continue in the current manner is to drag the system into further disrepute, encourage even more bold-faced thieves, more reckless public officials and we can expect complete loss of the residual respect for the post-independence civilization we have tried to grow. That would be an ugly and violent future for our society, so this episode requires stern and conscientious examination.

One of the emergent issues is how to reconcile the competing need for an effective anti-corruption agency independent of external instructions or directions, while remaining sensitive to the views of its stakeholders. In this case, the Commissions formal reporting device its Annual Reports was silent at the time of its momentous decision to seek to omit State Enterprises and bodies under State control from its remit. That failure to publish its 2008 & 2009 Annual Reports might be understood as a natural consequence of the virtual collapse of the Commission the February 2009 resignations of the John Martin-led Commission

were less than two months before the scheduled release of the 2008 Annual Report. The May 2009 resignations of the Fr. Henry Charles-led Commission dealt a further blow to this beleaguered Institution.

All of that is true, but it does not at all explain the Commissions silence in relation to its proposed appeal to the October 2007 judgment. For those readers who did not see the previous column

The 2008 Annual Report notes, without explanation, the major shift which the Commission was seeking in its 2008 appeal -

The expression Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies and State Enterprises including tho se bodies in which the State has a controlling interest means, the members of the decision -making body of bodies established by statute which bodies are public in nature in that they exercise public functions and/or functions on behalf of the State or the Executive (pg 8).

The plain meaning of that paragraph is that the Integrity Commission intended to ask the Appeal Court to
Omit State Enterprises from its remit; Omit bodies in which the State has a controlling interest from its remit and Redefine Statutory Bodies so as to specify that only those performing public functions were to be within the Commissions remit.

The Integrity Commission has a healthy budget for advertising and yet those proposals were advanced in virtual silence against the interests of an unaware public. Why? Please note that the Commissions website has all its Annual Reports since 1988 online, which is exemplary, but the 2007, 2008 and 2009 editions are not visible. I was able to obtain them from the Commission, but that gap in the website needs to be rectified.

Dr. Keith Rowley, MP The devastating February 2009 High Court ruling in which the IC was condemned is a sobering milestone The Court declares that the Integrity Commission has acted in bad faith in relation to Dr. Rowley and is guilty of the tort of misfeasance in public office. This prompted their resignations (even the two Commissioners who were appointed after those acts were committed also resigned!) on 5 February 2009 -

The members of the commission accept and recognise that the commission acted wrongly by failing to give Dr Rowley a full opportunity to be heard. While we consider that the commission acted in good faith, we recognise that the commission must respect the courts decision.

My fellow commissioners and I wish to express our deep regret and sincere apologies to His Excellency the President, to Dr Keith Rowley and to the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

So, even when resigning after a complete defeat, the Commissions displayed a defiant attitude toward the Courts ruling. This, after their own Counsel, in the first hearing, conceded 90% of Dr. Rowleys case para 12 of that ruling refers.

In April 2007, the Commission conceded in Court that its actions in the Rowley matter were indeed improper, so it is against that background we consider its February 2008 appeal in this matter.

The IC is embedded in our 1976 Constitution, with its powers and duties specified in the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA), the preamble of which reads:

An Act to provide for the establishment of the Integrity Commiss ion; to make new provisions for the prevention of corruption of persons in public life by providing for public disclosure; to regulate the conduct of persons exercising public functions; to preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions, and for matters incidental thereto.

In addition, its 2008 Annual Report discloses its Vision Statement: Trinidad & Tobago is a corruption-free nation with a high moral tone, where persons in public life are respected because of their integrity

Its 2008 Mission Statement is: The Integrity Commission of Trinidad & Tobago will lead in promoting integrity, reducing corruption and increasing legal compliance among persons in public life, so that public resources are used fairly and for the benefit of all people of our nation The 2008 decision of the Commission to formally seek a Court ruling to limit its remit as described does violence to every one of those worthwhile aims. This raises the pointed question of whether the 2008 appeal could be considered ultra vires i.e. illegal by virtue of being in conflict with its fundamental remit and obligations.

Collateral Consequences

The present situation, which is what they were intending to achieve, is one in which few will want to serve on Boards of Statutory Bodies as against State Enterprises. The original problem was stated in Parliament to be the shortage of persons to serve on the Boards of Public Bodies, so this will add to the difficulty. Also, the impending arrival of large-scale Public Private Partnerships into this scenario, will introduce yet another aspect of this intentional loophole.

Silence is the enemy of progress

Sections 28 & 35 of the IPLA forbid the disclosure of confidential information held by the Commission. That will give useful cover to those who wish to continue the Code of Silence in our largescale affairs, so it will be a challenge for the Public to ever get a proper account of how these events unfolded. The Public Interest requires at least an attempted explanation as to why the IC behaved in this fashion in that extraordinary period.

The sincere apology issued by John Martin, was necessary, but is not sufficient.

We need a proper explanation of these decisions

1. 2. to write PM Manning on 19 October 2004 for instructions (when Gordon Deane was Chairman); to ignore the advice of Senior Counsel and the external forensic accountant they had engaged for the Landate matter; 3. Apply to the Appeal Court for a revised remit so as to exclude State Enterprises and Bodies under State control; 4. Fail to notify the public, to whom they are ultimately responsible, of that fateful decision;

Dr. Harold Kerzners recent speech to the PMI conference last week referred to the fact that the Project Management profession had not occupied itself with defining failure, but he offered this striking insight from Harvard University

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

| Constitution Home | Exceptions for & Savings for existing

CHAPTER 10 law.

| Chapter 3: The President

THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

| Chapter 4: Parliament
138.- 1. There shall be an Integrity Commission (int his section and in section 139 referred to as "the Commission") for Trinidad and Tobago consisting of such number of members, qualified and appointed in such manner and holding office upon such tenure as may be prescribed.

| Powers of parliament | Sessions of parliament | System of balloting | DPP, Ombudman | The Judicature | Consolidated Fund | Appointments, Tennure of Offices | The Integrity Commission

2. The Commission shall be charged with the duty of-

a. receiving from time to time, declarations in writing of the assets, liabilities and income of members of the House of Representatives, Ministers of Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries and Chief Technical Officers.

b. the supervision of all matters connected therewith as may be prescribed.

POWER TO MADE LAWS RELATING TO COMMISSION

139.- Subject to this Constitution, Parliament may make provision for-

a. the procedure in accordance with which the Commissionis to perform its functions;

b. conferring such powers on the Commission and imposing such duties on persons concerned as are necessary to enable the Commission to cary out effectively the purposes of section 138;

c. the proper custody of declartions and other documents delivered to the Commission;

d. the maintenance of secrecy in respect of all information received by the Commission in the course of its duties with respect to the assets, leabilities and income of any member of Parliament and any other person; and

e. generally to give effect to the provisions of section 138.

CHAPTER 11

THE SALARIES REVIEW COMMISSION

CONSTITUTION OF COMMISSION

140.- 1. There shall be a Salaries Review Commission which shall consist of a Chairman and four other members all of whom shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

2. The members of the Salaries Review Commission shall hold office in accordance with section 126.

FUNCTIONS FO COMMISSION

141.- 1. The Salaries Review Commission shall fromtime to time with the approval of the President review the salaries and other conditions of service of the President, the holders of offices referred to in section 136(12) to (15), members of Parliament, including Ministers of Government and Parliamentary Secretaries, and the holders of such other offices as may be prescribed.

2. The report of the Salaries Review Commission concerning any review of salaries or othe conditions of service, or both, shall be submitted to the Prime Minister for presentation to the Cabinet and shall be laid as soon as posible thereafter on the table of each House.

CHAPTER 12

MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL

RESIGNATIONS

142.- 1. Subject to the provision of this Constitution, any person who is appointed or elected to or otherwise selected for any office established by this Constitution, including the office of Prime Minister or other Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person or authority by whom he was appointed, elected or selected,

2. The resignation of any person from any such office shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed or by any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.

RE-APPOINTMENT, ETC.

143.- 1. Where any person has vacated any office as established by this Constitution, incluiding the office of Prime Minister or other Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, he may, if qualified, again be appointed, elected or otherwise selected to hold that office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

2. Where by this Constitution a power is conferred upon any person or authority to make any appointment to any public office, a person may be appointed to that office notwithstanding that some other person may be holding that office, when that other person is onleave of absence pending relinquishment of the office; and where two or more persons are holding the same office by reason of an appointment made in pursuance of this subsection, then for the purposes of any function conferred upon the holder of that office the person last appointed shall be deemed to be the sole holder of the office.

FIRST SCHEDULE

FORMS OF OATH (OR AFFIRMATION) OF ALLEGIANCE

AND OF OFFICE

Section 37

Form of oath (affirmation) for the President:

I, A. B., do swear by ............................. (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago and to the best of my ability preserve and defend the Constitution and the law, that I will conscientiously and impartially discharge the functions of President and will devote myself to the service and well-being of the peopleo of Trinidad and Tobago.

Section 84

Form of oath (affirmation) for a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary:

I, A. B., do swear by ............................... (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago and will uphold the Constitution and the law, that I will conscientiously, impartially and to the best of my ability discharge my duties as .............................. and do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection ir ill-will.

Section 57

Form of oath (affirmation) for a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate:

I, A. B., having been elected/appointed a member of Parliament do swear by .............................. (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago, will uphold the Constitution and the law, and will conscientiously and impartially discharge the responsibilities to the people of Trinidad and Tobago upon which I am about to enter.

Sections 3, 91, 107, 11, 126, 131

Form of oath (affirmation) for the Ombudsman, a Judge, the Auditor General, a member of a Service Commission or a member of the Public Service Appeal Board:

I. A. B., having been appointed ................................... of Trinidad and Tobago do swear by ................................ (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Trinidad and Tobago and will uphold the Constitution and the law, that I will conscientiously, impartially and to the best of my knowledge, judgment and ability discharge the functions of my office and do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of Trinidad and Tobago without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

SECOND SCHEDULE

(Section 72)

BOUNDARIES OF CONSTITUENCIES

1.- These rules are the Delimitation of Constituencies Rules in accordance with which the constituencies of Trinidad and Tobago are to be delimited under section 72(1).

2.- Subject to paragraph 3, the electorate shall, so far as is practicable be equal in all constituencies.

3.- the number of constituencies in Tobago shall not be less than two.

4.- In Trinidad and in tobago, respectively, the electorate in any constituency shall not be more than one hundred and ten per cent nor be less than ninety per cent of the total electorate of the island divided by the number of constituencies in that island.

5.- Special attention shall be paid to the needs of sparsely populated areas which on account of size, isolation or inadequacy of communications cannot adequately be represented by a single member of Parliament.

6.- Natural boundaries such as major highways and rivers shall be used wherever possible.

7.- In this Schedule "Trinidad" means the island of Trinidad and its offshore islands, and "Tobago" means the Island of Tobago and its offshore islands.

THIRD SCHEDULE

[(SECTION 94(4)(B))]

MATTERS NOT SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

1.- Action taken in matters certified by the Attorney General to affect relations or dealings between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and any other Government or any International Organisation.

2.- Action taken in any country or territory outside Trinidad and Tobago by or on behalf of any officer representing or acting under the authority of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

3.- Action taken under any law relating to extradition or fugitive offenders.

4.- Action taken for the purposes of investigating crime or of protectiong the security of the State.

5.- The commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings before any court in Trinidad and Tobago or before any international court or tribunal.

6.- Any exercise of the power of pardon.

7.- Action taken in matters relating to contractual or other commercial transactions, being transactions of a department of government or an authority to which section 93 applies not being transactions for or relating to-

a. the acquisition of land compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily;

b. the disposal as surplus of land acquired compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily.

8.- action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters in relation to service in any office or employment in the public service or under any authority as may be prescribed.

9.- Any matter relating to any person who is or was a member of the armed forces of Trinidad and Tobago in so far as the matter relates to-

a. the terms and conditions of service as such member; or

b. any order, command, penalty or punishment given to or affecting him in his capacity as such member.

10.- Any action which by virtue of any provision of this Constitution may not be enquired into by any court.

Passed in the House of Representatives this 26th day of March 1976.

J. E. CARTER

Clerk of the House

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that this Act is one the Bill for which has been passed by the House of Representatives and at the final vote thereon in the House has been supported by the votes of not less than three-fourths of all the members of the House, that is to say by the votes of 31 members of the House.

J. E. CARTER

Clerk of the House

Passed in the Senate this 24th day of March, 1976.

R. GRIFFITH

Clerk of the Senate

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that this Act is one the Bill for which has been passed by the Senate and at the final vote thereon in the Senate has been supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the Senate, that is to say by the votes of 17 Senators.

R. GRIFFITH

Clerk of the Senate

Legal Supplement Part A to the "Trinidad and Tobago Gazette", Vol. 19, No. 314, 2nd October, 1980

FIFTH SESSION FIRST PARLIAMENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD

AND TOBAGO

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

ACT No. 37 OF 1980

[L.S.]

AN ACT to establish the Tobago House of Assembly for the purpose of making berrer provision for the administration of the Island of Tobago and for matters connected therewith.

[Assented to 23rd September, 1980]

ENACTMENT

ENACTED by the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago as follows:-

SHORT TITLE

1.- This Act may be cited as the tobago House of Assembly Act, 1980.

CONSTITUTION END

http://www.trinicenter.com/CONSTITUTION/continue12.htm

Rebuilding confidence tough

By Denyse Renne Sunday, July 1 2012 The operations of the Integrity Commission have yet again come into the public spotlight, following a ruling by Magistrate Marcia Murray last week in the matter involving former prime minister Basdeo Panday. Panday,79, was before the courts facing a re-trial on charges of failing to declare his assets in a London bank account. His trial was stayed following arguments by his attorneys.

However, in summing up before making her ruling in Pandays favour, Murray again called into question the conduct of the Integrity Commission in the process of building a case against Panday.

It is the Courts view that the misconduct of the Integrity Commission was so serious that it would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute, Murray said.

Murrays damning statements were not the first to be made against the Integrity Commission in recent years. In fact, the public has now become accustomed to hearing accusations of misconduct being levelled against the commission, supposedly a bastion of integrity and fairness, in the conduct of its duty.

In a 2008 ruling, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee had also delivered a damning indictment of the conduct of the commission, saying that it had acted in bad faith in relation to a matter involving former minister, now Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, and was in fact guilty of misfeasance in public office".

Apart from these two incidents, the commission has seen itself embroiled in controversy after controversy, the most recent being the ongoing judicial action lodged by its suspended vice chairman Gladys Gafoor. Gafoor is questioning a decision by members of the commission last year, to force her to recuse herself from an investigation involving former Attorney General John Jeremie.

Gafoor is calling on the High Court to quash a decision taken by the commission last December 19, which forced her to recuse herself from the Jeremie matter.

Jeremie had written to the commission asking for Gafoor and another commissioner chartered accountant

Seunarine

Jokhoo

to

be

removed

from

all

consideration

of

his

matter

What has been particularly alarming to the public, however, are the claims of alleged interference from political entities in the Commissions affairs.

Attorney

General

Anand

Ramlogan

has

been

named

in

Gafoors

complaint.

The AG, however, has countered that any interaction he had with Gafoor in the matter before the court was legitimate and proper.

But should any discussions between the two parties have taken place in the first instance, given that the commission has in the past been severely chastised for allowing itself to be influenced by the political directorate?

These issues apart, many citizens are also unaware of what exactly the Integrity Commission is and what are its responsibilities.

According to information obtained from the commission, the 1976 Constitution of TT provided for the establishment of an Integrity Commission. The law states: there shall be an Integrity Commission ... for Trinidad and Tobago consisting of such number of members, qualified and appointed in such manner and holding office upon such tenure as may be prescribed.

The commission was given the duty of receiving from time to time, declarations in writing of the assets, liabilities and income of members of the House of Representatives, Ministers of Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries and Chief Technical Officers.

The commission is also viewed as an independent body, not subject to the control or direction of any persons or authority in the performance of its functions.

The Integrity Commission started operations in January 1988 at the Hall of Justice, Port -of-Spain. Justice George Collymore was elected as chairman, Dr George Sammy, deputy chairman, and Dr J ONeil Lewis, John Martin and John Ottley as members. During its first year in office, the commission held 50 sittings.

Sammy died a short time after assuming duties and ONeil-Lewis was elevated to the deputy chairman position.

Attorney Brian des Vignes was then appointed. Under Collymores tenure more than 90 matters came before the commission. But even then, the commission began to detect an inability to properly function. While the act gave the commission power to conduct an enquiry to verify the contents of a declaration or other statements, the commission, at that time, lamented that it was deprived of staff to carry out full scale investigations.

The issue of police officers being involved in the investigations was also raised, as was the concern that officers were not obligated under the act to inform the commissioner of their findings.

The commission then recommended that mechanisms be put in place, whereby information brought to its attention could be thoroughly investigated before any enquiry by a Tribunal was embarked upon. The commission also recommended that it be empowered, in its discretion, to refer such information to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. An investigation could then be carried out by the police department under the DPPs direction and supervision.

Suggestions for a more comprehensive integrity legislation, to include conflict of interest, insider information, the use of office to influence a decision, accepting gifts and other departure from ethical standards, were also put forward by the Collymore-led body. Several of these articles subsequently found life in a new Integrity in Public Life Act. The new act included a Public Disclosure statement, the Statement of Registrable Interests and a Code of Conduct. In 2003, President George Maxwell Richards assumed office and unlike his predecessors, appointed insurance executive Gordon Deane as chairman of the commission. Previous presidents had all appointed retired judges to chair the commission

It was during Deanes watch that the commission referred what was eventually called the Landate project matter involving Rowley to the Office of the DPP. In November 2004, the commission started an investigation into allegations regarding the siphoning of materials from the Scarborough Hospital site to a development project at Mason Hall, Tobago. The development is reportedly owned by Rowleys wife Sharon. However, Deane subsequently recused himself from the matter and resigned.

Rowley challenged the circumstances in which the commission submitted his file to the office of the DPP. One of the points argued by Rowley was that he was not given an opportunity to properly and effectively make a representation before a Tribunal, nor was he told he was being investigated in the first place. The lawsuit also revealed that the commissioners wrote to then prime minister Patrick Manning, asking how it should proceed in the matter.

Former insurance director John Martin was appointed to head the commission on Deans departure.

In 2009, in summing up the case before delivering judgement, Rajnauth -Lee said: In all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that when the Integrity Commission referred its report to the DPP on August 7, 2006, it was recklessly indifferent as to whether this conduct was illegal. In the judgment of the Court, the Integrity Commission was subjectively reckless in the sense of not caring whether their conduct was illegal or not."

At the end of the case, Rowley was awarded $100,000. Soon after the ruling, Martin and commissioners, retired Justice Monica Barnes, Peter Clarke and Vindar Dean-Maharaj, tendered their resignations.

Martin, in a subsequent apology latter issued to the President, said he and the commissioners accepted and recognised that they acted wrongly by failing to give Rowley a full opportunity to be heard.

"My fellow commissioners and I wish to express our deep regret and sincere apologies to His Excellency the President, to Dr. Keith Rowley and to the people of Trinidad and Tobago, Martin had stated.

Months after the resignations, Richards appointed Roman Catholic priest, Father Henry Charles, to head the commission on May 1,2009.

Charles appointment, however, lasted a mere seven days as he was forced to tender his resignation amid allegations of plagiarism. In his defence, Charles said the law which governs his faith stated that he could not serve on the commission.

According to Fr Charles, the Integrity Commission had civil power and the prohibition of the Code of Canon Law would apply. The Canon Law reads: Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

Charles commissioners included Lylla Bada, Gafoor, Jeffrey McFarlane and Justice Zainool Hosein. However, Mc Farlane and Hosein also tendered their resignations before settling in.

McFarlane quit after it emerged he was on a state board (the act prohibits persons on state boards from being appointed to the commission). Several entities, including the Trinidad and Tobago Transparency International, had by then already questioned whether he would be fair in his rulings having been exposed to a series of events while holding posts with several private agencies. Hosein, on the other hand, quit shortly after being formally appointed. He claimed the President had reneged on his offer to appoint him as deputy chairman of the body.

Fast forward to 2010, when University of the West Indies (UWI) economist, Dr Eric St Cyr, was given the mantle of leading the commission. This appointment too was short-lived as in October 2011, St Cyr tendered his resignation following statements he made in the media pertaining to an investigation involving current Udecott chairman Jearlean John, who, coincidentally, also complained that she was unaware she was being probed. J. John has since reportedly been cleared in that probe.

Prior to this, St Cyr was heavily criticised following his public statements regarding Prime Minister Kamla PersadBissessars stay at the Tunapuna home of a friend, during and after the General Elections of 2010, and also after speaking out of turn on Jack Warners Cabinet and FIFA posts.

In November 2011, Richards appointed former media mogul Ken Gordon to lead the commission, which also included Gafoor, Seunarine Jokhoo, Prof Ann-Marie Bissessar and Neil Rolingson.

But Gordon and Gafoor soon reportedly became involved in a row over the Jeremy matter, leading the trail of events which are now being aired in the High Court. These high-profiled incidents have, however, now left the public seriously doubting whether the persons charged with regulating issues of integrity are indeed worthy of the responsibility.

http://newsday.co.tt/crime_and_court/0,162599.html

Integrity Commission members resign

EmailShare

Email

Byline Author: Francis Joseph Article Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009
SHAREBAR

Rowley: Decent thing to do

Keith Rowley

In the aftermath of a demoralising court defeat to former government minister Dr Keith Rowley on Tuesday, the four members of the Integrity Commission submitted their resignations to President George Maxwell Richards yesterday morning. In the aftermath of a demoralising court defeat to former government minister Dr Keith Rowley on Tuesday, the four members of the Integrity Commission submitted their resignations to President George Maxwell Richards yesterday morning. Richards, who accepted the resignations, is now searching among qualified nationals for five new Commissioners to fill the vacancies left by sudden departure of John Martin, chairman, Justice Monica Barnes, deputy chairman, Peter Clarke, and Vindar DeanMaharaj. The fifth Commissioner, Brian Nicholson, died last year and was never replaced.

Rowley, who called for the members of the Commission to resign, said last night that he was not surprised that they had done so. It was the only decent thing to do; that was to be expected. A finding of misfeasance in public office is a very serious matter, especially when it comes from the Integrity Commission, a body established under the constitution to preserve a high level of integrity. They really h ad no choice. This was not the first time that the Commission has found itself in trouble. Very early into my matter, very prominent persons were calling on them to resign. It is a sad thing for this to happen. There was no pleasure in seeing that. Martin, Nicholson, Barnes and Clarke were appointed Commissioners on August 24, 2006, for a three-year period. Dean-Maharajs appointment took effect on September 1, 2006. They came into office weeks after the last meeting of the Commission (August 7, 2006), which took the decision to submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to have Rowley investigated over the Landate project in Tobago, without telling the then minister he was being investigated. In a statement issued yesterday, Martin said, The members of the Integrity Commission have given consideration to the judgment of the High Court, dated 3rd February, 2009, in the proceedings commenced by Dr Keith Rowley. The members of the Commission accept and recognise that the Commission acted wrongly by failing to give Dr Rowley a full opportunity to be heard. While we consider that the Commission acted in good faith, we recognise that the Commission must respect the courts decision. In the circumstances, all of the members of the Commission have decided to resign. We have met today with his Excellency, the President, and have informed him of our decision. My fellow Commissioners and I wish

to express our deep regret and sincere apologies to his Excellency, the President, to Dr Keith Rowley, and to the people of Trinidad and Tobago, Martin added. On Tuesday, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court, awarded Rowley more than $100,000 in damages, interest and costs against the Integrity Commission, which pursued the controversial Landate project in Tobago. The judge ruled that the Commission acted in bad faith in relation to Rowley, and was guilty of the tort of misfeasance in public office. She also found on the facts that there was an unfair abuse of power on the part of the commission in leading Rowley and his wife, Sharon, to believe that the investigations in relation to Landate were ongoing and that Mrs Rowley had a continuing obligation to provide information to the Commission. After the court judgment, Rowley called on members of the Commission to demit office. On Wednesday, members of the Commission met in an emergency meeting and decided to tender their resignations to the President, just six months short of the completion of their term. This is the first time that an entire independent commission has resigned in the aftermath of controversy. Members who resigned: John C Martin, Chairman Martin is a Chartered Accountant with over 36 years experience. He is currently director of Allied Hotels Limited, Furness Trinidad Limited, Trinidad Building & Loan Association and Furness Anchorage General Insurance Limited. He has also served as President of the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

Justice Monica Barnes Barnes is a retired Supreme Court Judge. She was Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board and before that, Chief Parliamentary Counsel. She has been a member of several key Commissions. including the Law Reform Commission and the Caricom Company Law Task Force. Peter Clarke Clarke is a Financial Consultant. He is a director of a number of companies, including the General Building and Loan Association, Allied Hotels Limited and the Trinidad and Tobago Stock Exchange, a member of the UWI Development and Endowment Fund and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Port-of-Spain Finance Council. Vindar Dean-Maharaj Dean-Maharaj is a Chartered Accountant. He is a full-time member of the Tax Appeal Board.
- See more at: http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/news/general/2009/02/06/integritycommission-members-resign#sthash.w4wtDHSJ.dpuf

me

Gordon: Integrity Commission a toothless tiger

Published: Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Camille Clarke

Text Size:

Ken Gordon

The Integrity Commission, the transparency watchdog agency for public officials, was yesterday described as a toothless tiger by its chairman Ken Gordon. Legislation to strengthen the provisions to compel people in public life to file declarations has already been drafted, Gordon said, and will be

made public. The chairman was speaking to reporters at a symposium discussing the teachers role in the commissions Do it Right competition, at Hyatt Regency hotel, Port-of-Spain. Recently the commission published a list of people in public life, including politicians and state-board members, who have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act.

Gordon said the problem of compliance has been going on for over 25 years. Something was wrong because we lacked the enforcement of powers which should be there and we are now seeking the authority to go forward, he said. The Commission, he said, was now trying to amend the Act, to ensure better clarity on how the body should react when someone in public life fails to comply. We are seeing what is wrong and what needs to be done. We dont have the teeth to take us forward and so we cant go forward logically and do what would we would li ke to do, and we are making recommendations to change that. We are almost like a toothless tiger, meaning we are told that we should do certain things but its not spelled clearly out how we do those things, and we are trying to amend the IPLA (Integrity in Public Life Act), he said.

Gordon said consultation started several months ago and the Commission was about to publish a draft report when the former commission expired. We held it until the new commissioners came forward, basically, and we are ready to publish that draft. We are going to make it public so everybody would have the opportunity to comment, he said. Gordon said people were accountable for a number of different things. When you dont give the information you are supposed to give there i s a fee attached to that, but there is a process. Twice we published the names of people who have not responded and we are at the point of taking action, he said. Gordon said there are many investigations that have been going on over the past few years. It is an ongoing thing that takes more than two years. We have a number of investigations before us now and (they) are at various stages of completion. It is a matter between that person and ourselves, he said.

E-MAILGATE MATTER

At the symposium, deputy chairman of the Integrity Commission Justice Sebastian Ventour said no one alleged to be involved in the e-mail fiasco has been interviewed by members of the commission. Ventour was referring to the e-mail messages which were revealed on May 20 by Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley during a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The series of e-mails alleged a conspiracy among senior government officials to commit crimes that included possibly physically harming a journalist and perverting the course of justice.

The commission wrote to Persad-Bissessar urging her to waive her rights to privacy by allowing Google Inc to give information on the e-mails. Google is the domain that hosts one of the e-mail addresses used in the alleged discussions. It was also reported that the commission was seeking information from attorneys representing the PM and two Cabinet members. Yes, we are investigating the matter and we have been in contact with Google, but it is an ongoing investigat ion, Gordon said. However, Ventour said the commission has not taken statements and did not contact anyone who has been alleged to be involved. He said it was an ongoing investigation and did not speak further on the matter. Gordon recused himself from the probe.

Get Integrity Commission going

Published: Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Text Size:

Its welcome news that Ken Gordon is being considered as a new chairman of the troubled Integrity Commission. Mr Gordon has given significant service to Trinidad and Tobago both in the private and public sector and maintained a profile of service with integrity for decades. At this juncture, the possibility that Ken Gordons name had been forwarded for consideration to Prime Mi nister Kamla Persad-Bissessar by President George Maxwell Richards is welcome news not just because of the eminent eligibility of Gordon as a candidate but also because it signals a certain urgency on the part of the President of the Republic to returning the Integrity Commission to fully functional status. This is no small matter, and President Richards is well aware of it. The President took significant stick for seeming to take his time to reconstitute the Commission after its most recent collapse. Since former Prime Minister Patrick Manning declined to confirm the second term of office of Justice Gerard des Iles, chairmen of the Integrity Commission have not served for long. Gordon Deane resigned after sustained questions were raised about possible conflicts that might have arisen as a result of his previous work in the private sector. John Martin, along with the entire commission, stepped down in 2009 after the High Court ruled that they had acted in bad faith by failing to allow Dr Keith Rowley and his wife Sharon a chance to be heard during an investigation into the Landate Tobago development. Within months, a freshly appointed commission collapsed again after its chairman, Fr Henry Charles, stepped down in the face

of accusations of plagiarism and issues related to church law. Within a week of Charles resignation, every member of that commission had submitted their own letters of resignation to President Richards. The resignation of Chairman Dr Eric St Cyr was almost a foregone conclusion after he told a reporter that Udecott Chairman Jearlean John was under investigation, continuing a pattern of careless speaking about the confidential business of the commission for which he had been quite vehemently chastised in the past. There are likely to be questions raised about Ken Gordons engagements with the business community as there were about Gordon Deanes appointment and those matters should be expeditiously reviewed in the interests of settling the composition of the Integrity Commission in the shortest possible time. The challenges that the Integrity Commission has faced in its short history point to some fundamental issues that this country has to embrace if it is to fulfill the spirit as well as the legal requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act. Quite simply, the dispiriting experiences that the country has been witness to with successive commissioners has illustrated nothing less than the gap between the appearance and expectation of integrity and the reality of the demands of upholding it at the highest levels. The Integrity Commission cannot and indeed has not functioned because its Chairmen could not meet the rigorous demands of the office. The failings of almost a decade of expectations of successive chairmen of the commission speak directly to the need to implement not just more focused review of those chosen to serve but also the need for an additional step of introspection and coaching that would allow potential appointees to be guided in reviewing their careers in light of the demanding role they will be expected to play. To serve on the Integrity Commission is to commit to a service that denies any master beyond that of structured, impeccable justice and confidential review. Integrity Commissioners must expect to be judged not just on their present capacity but also on their life histories. Unlike a board posting, it allows no other employment and leaves its holders subject to an almost continuous review of their evaluations and judgements. These are real challenges, and the next candidate for the leadership role of the Integrity Commission would be well guided to learn from the hurdles that his predecessors faced.

Senior Counsel: Who will guard Integrity Commission?

Saturday, September 15 2012 Judges must remain exempt from investigations by the Integrity Commission, a senior counsel has advised, adding the commission, itself, should be subject to independent oversight. Who is going to guard the guards, are they including themselves? Senior Counsel Israel Khan asked yesterd ay in response to the commissions proposal that it be vested with powers to search and seize and to expand the list of persons in public life to include judges.

On Thursday, the commission said it wanted more powers to investigate corruption, and proposed changes to the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) under Part V of the Act which deals with Power of Investigation.

The commission has prepared a document, A Review of the Role of the Integrity Commission to make it more effective in: uncovering corruption, maintaining oversight on persons in public life and winning wider public support.

Khan said the commission should have powers of search and seizure, but it must not erode the power of the police.

While Khan did not yet peruse the document, he said TT was a very small country which had a problem with drugs and money laundering and in this regard the commission should have power of search and seizure. He said, hundreds of millions of dollars are passing through TT.

However, the commission should also be subject to investigation, he added. Khan did not agree with the commissions recommendation to expand the list of persons in public life to include judges.

Judges should not be included. This is a small country and there is no empirical evidence that judges are corrupt, Khan said.

President of the Contractors Association Mervyn Chin said the commission was set up to ensure operations and anything to do with governance were above board and was primarily responsible for investigating com plaints. He questioned what would be the implications of the latest pronouncement regarding getting powers to search and seize.

Chin said the commission would be acting beyond their ambit and encroaching on the territory of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We

believe

they

would

be

overstepping

their

bounds,

said

Chin.

Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said, The less I say about the Integrity Commission, the better. I dont want to comment on the Integrity Commission.

Rowley, while a PNM Government Minister, has been the subject of investigations by the commission over a property deal in Tobago, referred to as Landate, but was cleared by the courts as the commission failed to allow him to respond to the allegations.

Deryck Murray, chairman of TT Transparency Institute, said it would review the commissions document and seek legal advice on it.

We are very supportive of the Integrity Commission and its work and will take a constructive look at the document, he said.

The recommendation for power of search and seizure has come months after Newsdays Chacon Street office as well as the home of reporter Andre Bagoo was raided by officers of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB) and items seized including a computer and documents. The action by police followed a complaint to police by commission chairman Ken Gordon about an article of December 20, 2011 by Bagoo about a rift between himself and deputy chair Gladys Gafoor. Prior to the raid the ACIB had written to Bagoo asking him to divulge the source of information used in the article.

At a press briefing on Thursday, the commission announced 16 recommendations it has proposed for changes in the Integrity in Public Life Act, these include: an overhaul of the financial disclosure provision to facilitate faster processing of declarations as well as the efficient verification of these declarations; the power to levy fines and penalties on persons who do not file declarations; review and increase the list of persons exercising public functions to include all institutions that handle public public money.