Category: Legislation

Posted on

Putting some sense in the 2009 Budget

Introduction
The National Assembly has the most unenviable task of making sense of the 2009 Budget presented last Monday in the National Assembly. The Minister of Finance apparently saw its greatest virtue as being the “biggest budget ever.” Not only is a boast on size from a Minister of Dr Singh’s stature interesting, but if size is the only thing that commends this budget, then there must be serious concern about its wisdom. Size only tells us how much of our money the government will be spending and where the money is coming from. It does not tell us how well the money is being spent and surely that is at least as important.

I understand that MPs, constituted as the Committee of Supply for purposes of Budget consideration, can at this stage, raise “any question relating to the line item being considered and all others relevant to the provided profile for capital items, description provided for each line item, etc.” They need to use that right to the hilt. In terms of ideas and direction, this Budget is by far the worst ever constructed under the Economic Recovery Programme, and even before. It perhaps reflects the involuntary departure from the Ministry of Finance of Mr Winston Jordan who long held the position of Budget Advisor and who was replaced by Ms Sonia Roopnauth, parachuted into the ministry, along with a Deputy Minister of Finance whose role and utility is hardly well communicated.

More resources for the Audit Office
Expenditure has been climbing inexorably over the years which Dr Singh sees, incredibly, as a virtue. The perpetual late availability of the annual report of the Audit Office on the annual public accounts is often of little more than curiosity interest. That adds to the responsibility on the committee to thoroughly review the entire Budget, even at the risk of being accused of stalling. They owe it to the nation.

By the time the year is over, with accurate accounting, we will likely see the highest deficit ever recorded by this country. If all goes to form we can expect that the audit report on the finances allocated in the 2009 Budget will not be available until some time in 2011, the year of the next general election. We can expect as well that the report will be subject to the usual defects expected from an office short of critical resources and accustomed to failure to meet statutory obligations. One of the urgent and most significant recommendations of the committee therefore is the provision of increased sums to finance a functioning Audit Office.

As usual, most of the big players know that because of weak supervisory oversight on spending, they have tremendous latitude on how they account and spend. There is still lots of money outside there that is not properly accounted for on the income or expenditure side of the accounts. That is the case with the Lotto funds and now NICIL headed by Mr Winston Brassington, involving over the years billions of dollars. Those are unconstitutional and unlawful acts. The committee must come down on this. Since a Budget deals with available resources and their application, the estimates (budget) as presented are not correct in that they leave out substantial resources. They should be referred to the Minister for amendment.

There is no known case in recent memory where any Budget figure was changed after debate. Additionally, a significant part of the Budget is based largely on the system of incremental budgeting − take last year and add x %. That is not budgeting but arithmetic. In other words if we spent $100 dollars last year we look at inflation and then do a top-up to arrive at the current year. If we assume even a modest 10% in fat, wastage and inefficiencies, a clinical surgery of that fat without going yet into “lean and clean” could cut the budget by $12 billion – allowing a reduction of several forms of taxation including the VAT.

Zero-based budgeting
No change will come about without a new approach and nothing ever will. But blame me for being an optimist. I think it can be done, even beginning in 2009. Dr Singh was keen to tell us again about his government’s plans for the constitutionally independent Office of the Auditor General. What he should be telling us is how he intends to improve and modernise the system of budgeting of government finances. As an academic and accountant the Minister would be very familiar with the system of zero-based budgeting (ZBB).

He would know that properly applied, zero-based budgeting is particularly useful in the public sector and that the UK government in its 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review carried out a set of zero-based reviews of baseline expenditure in government departments to assess the effectiveness of government spending and its long-term objectives. ZBB starts from the premise that no costs or activities should be factored into the plans for the coming budget period, just because they figured in the costs or activities for the current or previous periods. Rather, everything that is to be included in the budget must be considered and justified. In effect, start by saying the budget is zero and then add the cost of those things considered necessary.

The key benefit of ZBB is that it focuses attention on the actual resources that are required in order to produce an output or outcome, rather than the percentage increase or decrease compared to the previous year. Under ZBB, budgeting is no longer a number-crunching process of spreadsheets, but an exercise involving the budget agency and the spenders in an analytical and decision-making process. The stupidity of the government’s rhetorical question, where is the money going to come from if this or that tax is cut, is based on a lack of appreciation of ZBB and the whole budget matrix, a criticism I never thought I would make under this Minister’s stewardship.

Bloated government
ZBB is not rocket science. Admittedly our budget is distorted by political considerations like having to find ministries and placements for all those party loyalists and those willing to go on the elections slate, hardly a relevant factor for ZBB. Do we really need a Ministry of Sport with a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary, when we have a Director of Sport and a National Sports Commission? Do we need two former ministers to advise the current Minister of Local Government which cannot deliver local government elections? And does the President need and use all those advisers in the Office of the President?

The committee looking at the line items in the Budget should ask for full particulars of the terms of employment of all advisers to the President and his ministers. Under ZBB there would have had to be good reasons to for their continuation.

Think what happens when you cut a ministry: savings on ministerial salaries and perks including chauffeur, guards, duty concessions, allowances, secretaries, public relations persons and property expenses. Even with the smallest ministry this can easily add up to hundreds of millions.

ZBB particularly lends itself to discretionary spending such as this and that activity, and showing overseas travel, etc. The committee should ask for details of the 2008 expenditure and 2009 projected expenditure on local and overseas travel by the President, ministers and other public officials. Almost on every occasion I travel I see some politician or other travelling first class. The committee should not be prepared to accept glib answers but only hard evidence on the amount and details of money spent for the President and his ministers’ overseas travel in 2008 and their specific spending plans for 2009.

Too many dollars, too little sense
The committee should ask about the $2.5 billion being spent on GECOM in 2009 – more than the amount spent on agriculture – and consider whether we are getting value for money. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is getting $3.2 billion and cannot put a representative in the UK where even a government supporter has lamented we do not have a representative and miss many, many meetings. What contribution does former Home Affairs Minister Mr Gajraj’s presence in India bring us that cannot be achieved by contacts between our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Indian High Commission?

We need to know why with all this overseas representation the President has to go out of the country sometimes three times per month. Are our representatives not functioning and do the things the President goes to really require the presence of our head of state?

The committee should find out about the money allocated in 2008 for airstrips in Leguan and Wakenaam, for which no work was done. It should ask for information on the Hope Canal on which $3 billion is being spent this year – all from borrowings and on the basis of technical advice of which the public knows nothing. Should the committee not want to ensure that it acts before the money is spent and the problem remains? The committee should scrutinize the capital budget with the greatest of care – some $46 billion dollars are involved.

It should request the audited financial statements of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority since it came into being in 2006. To give money to people who are derelict in their statutory duty to account is irresponsible. That of course applies to all the Budget agencies and those to whom public monies are given.

Conclusion
I do not expect that everything can be done immediately. But it is time that we move to serious budgeting and not indulge in politics and arithmetic as the 2009 Budget does. The Committee of Supply should request the presence of the Budget Director as it wades through the 2009 Budget. The accounting officer from the relevant ministry or department should be present to answer questions and if Minister Singh is too busy then his apparently under-worked deputy should be present at all the sessions.

Business Page would also like, respectfully of course, to recommend that we move to a system of zero-based budgeting and that we begin by identifying three or four ministries for the exercise in phase one, to begin in 2009. And to recommend as well that all positions paid from the public purse be listed in the Estimates, and not only those which have come through the Public Service Commission. Too much is being hidden.

Posted on

Dr. Misir should respond to the issues

Dear Editor,

Dr Prem Misir suggests that I lighten up. Okay, I will. But first, an update. Dr Misir returned the copy of the Trinidad Guardian I sent him last Monday. The banner headline had reported on the en bloc resignation of the high-powered Trinidad and Tobago Integrity Commission after a judge of the High Court criticised its conduct. Dr Misir was too busy to write the cover note himself but not too busy to instruct someone to write it on his behalf. It must feel so good to have a part in the biggest budget ever!

I note that Dr Misir considers my reference to his fellow-team member from OP Mr Kwame McKoy as “possible implied ethnic allusion.” Disowning Mr McKoy − which I am sure was not because of ethnicity – Dr Misir claims he is a batsman with consistently high “scores.”

But I guess if I say like Lara and Chanderpaul or Gayle and Sarwan, on the charge of second-rating “our” boys, I will be taken to the Ethnic Relations Commission which has been picked just as has President Jagdeo’s new and improved Integrity Commission led by Dr James Rose – no ethnic allusion, implied or otherwise. Ignorant of Dr Misir’s score, I checked Wisden and Cricinfo under Prem Misir, Dr, spinner, batsman, twelfth man or scorer, but came up with nothing.

Then I checked the Guyana Chronicle which has faithfully continued the practice honed from the days of Burnham of “making the news.” Presto – he came up, circa 1992 – All round(er), can be intellectual but prefers to score with politicians, plays for PPP, UG, GINA and Office of the President. Bats, bowls and fields wherever told. Provides refreshments, scripts and endorsements when directed.

Instead of responding to the substantive issues addressed in my letter of February 8, Dr Misir provided a CV of his self-recorded scores. I admit that I could not see the relevance of his scores to any of the issues raised in my letter and directly related to corruption − the non-appointment of an Ombudsman and Procurement Commission by the President, a proper Anti-Money Laundering Unit, freeing-up the Guyana Revenue Authority from political influence, campaign financing rules, a respected Office of the DPP and the unique situation (and I really mean it in the strictest sense of that word) where financial statements signed off by a minister are audited by an Audit Office where his wife is a top level officer. Perhaps Dr Misir will tell us that they have constructed an Indian Wall (a la the Chinese Wall concept) in the Audit Office.

Dr Misir, wanting to explain why the President failed to address the Bradford Report on the Integrity Commission, was kind enough to educate us ordinary taxpayers that the report is just that. Would he then tell us why the government of President Jagdeo commissioned such a costly study and committed to having its recommendations implemented? And please no nonsense about us not paying for the study: the fungibility of money is an elementary and universally known principle. Was it a show? Like it was when the President told a meeting in Florida in 1999 that he would have zero-tolerance with corruption in his government?

Now some rather egregious acts of corruption actually take place in the Office of the President (Dolphin, Wildlife, disappearing bank statements). As a self-professed organisational specialist as well as a batsman, Dr Misir would know the price of irrational decision-making, which goes by many less complimentary names.

Then of course the organisational specialist-in-chief President Jagdeo, after considering the report for several weeks and after ordering that it be made public, discredits the report! But then for people like Dr Misir, Mr McKoy, etc, the President is the reinvention of the old English maxim that kings are infallible, although even they never behaved as if they were omniscient.

And what is this about the law of the land and the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commission? With his consistently high scores, Dr Misir must be aware that the Constitution of Guyana is the supreme law of the land which the President has sworn to uphold.

He must know that the President has on more than one occasion violated Article 170 of the constitution regarding his powers in relation to presidential assent of bills passed by the National Assembly and continuously violates Article 216 which requires all public monies to be placed in the Consolidated Fund.

He must know as well that neither under the constitution nor under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act does the President have any authority to spend any public monies. And that under Article 94, the President may be removed from office if he commits any violation of this constitution.

Given his consistency, Dr Misir may wish to tell us whether he played in the cane-burning, strike-breaking, election-rigging game PPP versus the PNC when the PPP declared and conceded, citing critical support for the dictatorship. He may also wish to tell us about his practice of Eleanor Roosevelt’s famous quote about ideas, events and people.

Lighten up, Doc and then respond to the issues raised.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram

Posted on

The Integrity Commission is not a subject for spinning

Perhaps it is because in cricketing terms both Dr Prem Misir and Mr Kwame McKoy would be considered spinners of the pedigree of Ramadhin and Valentine; perhaps it is because they work at the same place, or that they write and think alike; or perhaps it is their knack for assigning a political party because they do not understand or practise independence, political or otherwise, but whatever it is, Dr Misir’s missive in the Stabroek News (February 3), repeated I believe in all the dailies, wishing me luck in my campaign in the 2011 elections surely extends their line about my political goals and plans. Dr Misir was even generous enough to wish me well, but then undermines his sincerity with the words, “I really mean it.” Or perhaps Dr Misir understands the need for such an attestation clause to add to his credibility. Whatever it is, I now make this public promise: If ever I decide to participate in the 2011 or the 2021 elections, which would be my preference, I will inform Dr Misir and Kwame first. After all they will, for their own purpose, publicise the news quickly and widely. And I really mean it!

In responding to the Business Page article on the Integrity Commission, Dr Misir made bold to say that the Integrity Commission exists with a functioning secretariat. What he did not tell us is how well it is functioning. Nor does he say that the secretariat as presently constituted cannot carry out its mandate under the Integrity Act, 1997. He does not say too that the commission, including the secretariat, has failed in routine administrative functions and that the commission and the commissioners have been derelict in their statutory duties. And that the commission has only an accounts clerk.

I can only wonder how Dr Misir can be so badly informed that he seems unaware of the rather uncomplimentary report done by external consultants Bradford and Associates, and that for over two years the accountable and self-appointed Minister, President Jagdeo, has been unable or unwilling to address the commission’s identified structural, organisational and operational deficiencies and the report’s recommendations, which this administration gave a commitment to the World Bank that it would implement. I am never sure whether the World Bank and the IMF are hopelessly spineless or dangerously gullible.

Dr Misir praises the President for sounding the alarm bell, which is the doctor’s euphemism for threatening a targeted group with prosecution. He does not say that the alarm came long into the still-born state of the commission and speculates on the President’s reasons for the timing of the chiming. Why he has to speculate given that he is the President’s spokesperson-in-chief is a bit of a mystery, every bit as surprising as penning his letter − apparently in his personal capacity. Perhaps it is because he described the episode started by the President as the “integrity thing.” But it is more than that; it is about possible criminal conduct, the rule of law, accountability and transparency. It is about how some politicians and “public servants” have come to acquire significant wealth on a bare state salary. It is about the kind of society and white collar criminality we as a society are prepared to tolerate. This is not something for spinning.

Some years ago when President Jagdeo appointed the wife of someone subsequently discredited to be a member of the Integrity Commission I wrote publicly that the commission itself needed a dose of integrity. I am now more convinced than then. As commissioners they need to be more virtuous than Caesar’s wife, ensuring that they comply with all the laws of the country and are scrupulously forthright about their compliance with all the country’s laws, including those relating to taxes.

But we need to fix more than the commission, which was part of the “integrity thing.” Imagine the President has not notified the commission of the resignation of Chairman George! Is this for real? We need to get the Office of the Ombudsman, the Procurement Commission and a proper Money Laundering Unit functioning. We need to free the Guyana Revenue Authority from political influence that may inhibit their zeal in going after the big-time tax evaders. We need proper campaign financing rules to free political parties from their secret and secretive donors.

We need an Office of the DPP which enjoys the total confidence of the public. And let us not forget, we need an Audit Office where the wife of a Minister does not hold a senior post.

It is time that we begin the serious and considerable work to be done; it is not a time to spin.

But back to Dr Misir’s letter. The letter jumps from me to the PNC, and then remembering what he had set out to do, ie respond to Business Page, he jumps right back to me in his closing paragraph. Perhaps Dr Misir was being too clever by half: accuse by association.

Finally, if Dr Misir wants to find out how a real Integrity Commission works I recommend that he consider what is happening with the Integrity Commission in Trinidad and Tobago.

If he does he will see that their Integrity Commission is enshrined in their constitution rather than a mere law; he will see the quality, qualification and background of its commissioners and the clout the commission has exercised in that country. In fact, just this past Thursday the entire commission comprising Chartered Accountant John C Martin, Chairman; retired Supreme Court Judge and former Chief Parliamentary Counsel Monica Barnes; Finance Consultant Peter Clarke and Chartered Accountant Vindar-Dean Mohammed, a full-time Member of the Tax Appeal Board resigned en bloc having been criticized by a judge. Their resignations took effect on submission to President Ellis.

Since I believe we have a duty to our fellow Guyanese to share knowledge and information, I am sending a copy of today’s (Friday) Trinidadian Guardian to Dr Misir. I hope he shares it with Kwame. And I really mean it!

Posted on

Integrity Commission on shaky ground – conclusion

Re-cap
Last week we ended the column with the offices listed in Schedule I to the Act, the holders of which must automatically file with the Integrity Commission, declarations of their income, assets and liabilities of themselves, their spouses and minor unmarried children by June 30 of the following year. Formidable as the list may appear, it leaves out some very vulnerable positions. For example, it does not include members of tender boards responsible for the award of contracts; members of Go-Invest which is responsible for recommendations on concessions to investors by the government; head of the prevention of money laundering unit; police and special prosecutors; members of the Securities Council; members of tax appeal boards and possibly some statutory bodies as well. Nor does the list go deep enough. For example it includes only four positions in the GRA/Customs and would have excluded those persons allegedly associated with the Fidelity scam. The offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice are not included but would have to file as members of the Judicial Service Commission.

Complaint required
Section 42 of the Act does however make provision for the following categories of persons not listed in Schedule I. Submission of declarations by them is not automatic and requires a complaint to the Commission, an investigation and findings while any resulting declarations will be in respect of specified years only. The categories are: public officers; officers of Regional Democratic Councils; officers of the Bank of Guyana; officers of state-owned and controlled banks; officers of public corporations and other bodies corporate and agencies (including companies and bodies established by or under any statute) owned by the state or in which the controlling interest is vested in the state or any agency on behalf of the state; members of tender boards.

The Act does not define “officers” but looking at section 42 alongside Schedule I, mandatory annual submission applies only to the top echelons. In any case, any appearance of overlap should cause no problem since once the position is listed in Schedule I, submission is mandatory. The problem faced by a person seeking to utilise this provision is that s/he has to have good grounds while section 28 (3) has the effect of discouraging complaints by providing sanctions for complaints that are considered frivolous, mischievous or spiteful.

Investigation into the assets of those GRA officers allegedly involved in the Fidelity scam would therefore require a complaint by any person which would include the President. Public posturing does not constitute a complaint which in any case has to be made to the Commission and not to the Audit Office.

Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct set out in Schedule II to the Act applies to all persons in public life, but experience has shown how hard it is for breaches of the code by both scheduled and non-scheduled persons to be uncovered and penalised. Many of the provisions of the code aim to establish proper conduct by public officers but this will require a complaint or self-disclosure, hardly a reasonable expectation. It expects, quite unrealistically in our environment, that a person who has received a gift in excess of $10,000 or who has misused his/her public office for private gains will report those facts to the Commission.

Powers of the President
The Act is also very clear on the independence of the Commission and provides that “in the exercise and discharge of its functions, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”

Perhaps it is timely to correct a view held not only by the President but also by the press, that is, the President’s role in relation to receipt of statements and publication of a list of defaulters. Section 13 is clear: the statements by persons other than members of the Commission go to the Commission. Only statements by members of the Commission are submitted to the President. The right to examine statements, make enquiries, request statements or publish names as set out in sections 17 to 19 is circumscribed by the use of the words “the Commission or the President, as the case may be” (emphasis mine). The President simply does not have the powers he claims and those who seek to speak on his behalf think he has.

Accountability
The Commission is required within three months after the end of the year to submit to the President a report containing an account of the activities of the Commission including any difficulties experienced by the Commission in the performance of its functions. Surely non-submission by relevant persons and not only MPs constitutes difficulties. The Commissioners have failed to discharge this particular responsibility for each year of the Commission’s existence, which constitutes a dereliction of their duty.

The nation is owed a full and proper explanation by the Commission’s acting Chairman, Mr Ferouz. Both as President and the self-appointed minister responsible for the operation of the Act, Mr Jagdeo owes the nation an explanation for his failure to have reports laid in the National Assembly within the prescribed time.

With the Commissioners’ continuing failures – I understand that they are now trying to work on their past reports − there are sufficient grounds for their removal under section 5 of the Act which include breach of any of the provisions of the Act, absence from meetings for two consecutive months or for three months during a period of twelve, and failure to carry out any of the functions and duties of the Commission. On these grounds, there can no longer be a basis for the pretence regarding Bishop George or the continued membership by Mr Fazeel Ferouz of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG), Mr Nigel Hinds of the Guyana Council of Churches and Pandit Rabindranauth, Director of the National Commission of the Family. Interestingly, while the Leader of the Opposition has to be consulted on appointments it seems that removal is a matter exclusively for the President.

Legal action
During this past week head of GINA, Dr Prem Misir, and Minister of Health Dr Leslie Ramsammy, both persons required to file declarations under the Act, wrote letters to the press on the question of the submission of declarations by persons concerned. Dr Ramsammy’s letter was refreshing and persuasive and could have easily been intended for all declarants, including his political colleagues. Dr Misir’s, on the other hand, was more concerned about opposition MP’s non-filing. Another letter signed by Mr Learie Barclay actually and dangerously sought to justify an improper “dictating” by the President, incredibly, on moral grounds.

Leader of the Opposition Mr Robert Corbin, an attorney-at-law argues that since his party has challenged the appointment of the Commissioners on the grounds that the President had failed to consult with him as required by the Act, their MPs do not have to comply with the Act. The press has given few details of the action brought and the relief sought by the PNC but as far as I am aware the party did not ask for any interim relief and accordingly Dr Misir has a point that compliance is required until the court rules otherwise. The PNC could have asked, for example, either that the court grant an order staying any requirement for the submission of declarations or that declarations be submitted but sealed so that the Commissioners whose appointment is subject to the court challenge are prevented from accessing them.

The opposition should also have considered how a court would interpret and apply section 9 of the Act which allows for acts of the Commission to retain their validity even if there is any defect in the appointment or qualification of “any person purporting to be a member.” Taken literally, even if the court finds a defect in the appointment or qualifications of all the members of the Commission, they may still rule the actions of the Commissioners as valid, despite the breach of the important consultation provision of the Act. In this connection and to avoid any embarrassment, the Chief Justice needs to ensure that the judge assigned to adjudicate in the matter has been submitting the annual declaration required by the Act.

The view of some legal minds outside of Guyana with whom I discussed the matter is that the legal action against the appointment does not constitute a stay but another person took a different view − there should be no second hurdle – the first (consultations with the leader of the opposition) was not crossed so no need to consider the second (compliance). For good measure he said that only in Guyana could such things take place.

Conclusion
The Act was intended, as stated in its long title, to secure the integrity of persons in public life and creates a new offence at law – Possession of Unaccounted Property or Pecuniary Resource. That is most desirable and can go a long way in cleaning the Augean stables so far as persons in public life are concerned. It can also help to raise revenue and curb tax evasion. I can see a Commissioner General ringing his hand in glee knowing that he can demand from relevant persons further statutory evidence against which to check the accuracy and completeness of information by an important class of taxpayers. And let us be clear – that includes all those persons whose official emoluments are exempted from taxation, such as the President, the Chancellor, the Chief Justice and persons in receipt of foreign-funded salaries.

The President has retreated from his misplaced two-week ultimatum for naming those MPs who fail to submit declarations. The PNC has already stated that its MPs will not submit, rendering the threat inconsequential. The President now says he is resuscitating the Commission, an admission that he has misunderstood and sought to misapply the provisions of the Act, not dissimilar to his pronouncements on tax holidays. The result is that the Act’s noble purposes have been delayed if not defeated. We can only hope that the President and the Leader of the Opposition can agree on five persons to serve as Commissioners. Will they also address the other shortcomings of the Act such as the list of persons required to file declarations? We have to hope as well that the court has been listening and reading about the consequences of its lethargy. Something tells me that we will have a long time to wait before this issue is resolved.

Finally, public officers may feel badly done by, being subject to more stringent ethical obligations than their private sector counterparts. Perhaps it is time to repeat a call made earlier by Business Page for a Code of Conduct for persons serving in a representative capacity in private sector organisations to prevent them abusing that role for their personal and specific business interest.

Posted on

Integrity Commission on shaky ground

Introduction
There has been unprecedented focus this past week on the Integrity Commission established under the Integrity Commission Act 1997. On Monday, President Jagdeo announced that he would be meeting the Commissioners two days later to tell them that he expected they would publish within two weeks the list of MPs who were failing to comply with the Act. Simultaneously, he announced that steps would be taken to have defaulters charged. On Tuesday it was reported that in a high profile family proceedings matter a declaration made under the Act was tendered in negotiations outside of the court to support a settlement offer. On Wednesday the promised meeting did not take place even as the two main opposition parties were reported as criticising the statements by the President. On Thursday the government claimed in an advertisement that the President’s call for sanctions was consistent with the law and that the criticisms by the opposition warranted “the most profound explanation” and on Friday the PNCR leader rebuffed the President’s call.

The Act was intended to promote transparency and integrity among public officials and sets out penal sanctions for non-compliance. Unfortunately the Act met with a court challenge in 2005 by the PNCR that the appointment of the Commissioners breached the consultation requirement set out in the Act. Despite the Act’s obvious significance, the court has not yet found time to deal with the case and in the view of the PNCR, the Act is effectively in abeyance. While Parliament has continued to allocate sums of money for the Commission’s secretariat, reports are that the Commission has not been functioning for want of a quorum and questions concerning the Commission are referred to chief government spokesman, Dr Prem Misir. Meanwhile the Commission has itself not been complying with the Act, suggesting that they too consider the Act as being held in abeyance.

All the President’s Men
Desirable as it is, the President’s apparent impulsive call made without due consideration of all the provisions in the Act may have the very opposite of the objectives he intends. What the President needs to do at this stage is take legal counsel and ensure that his action does not undermine achieving transparency and corruption. He should realise that he may get as much resistance from his own people as from the opposition. Specified declarants include all the presidential advisors and many from the party who hold top positions, and disclosure may place them in the uncomfortable position of having to explain any sudden wealth.

Calling it George
The Act provides for a Commission made up of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members, to be appointed by the President after consultation with the Minority Leader. The persons who have been appointed by the President are Anglican Bishop Randolph George as Chairman, Fazeel Ferouz of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG), Nigel Hinds of the Guyana Council of Churches and Pandit Rabindranauth, Director of the National Commission of the Family.

Usually such legislation comes under a particular minister and while the Act refers to “the Minister” it does not identify which one, while the bill setting up the Commission was piloted by the then Attorney General, Mr Bernard De Santos. It seems, however, that the President has assumed ministerial responsibility for the Act, though this is certainly not clear.

Bishop George resigned as Chairman close to three years ago, but according to the Commission, which does not speak on the record, since his resignation has not been accepted by the President, the Bishop remains the Chairman. In fact there is nothing requiring such acceptance as section 5 (2) of the Act provides that “The chairman or any other member may resign by letter addressed to the President.”

More confusion
The announcement that the Commission has not been meeting because of a lack of a quorum seems equally misinformed since section 9 (4) provides that three persons constitute a quorum and that in the absence of the chairman the persons present can appoint a chairman. Perhaps the framers of the Act knew what they were doing by requiring the chairman to be a judge of the High Court or any other fit and proper person, and the other members to have “experience in law, administration of justice, public administration, social service, finance or accountancy, or any other discipline.” The appointments based solely on religion appear to have put in overall charge of the Commission persons whose knowledge and experience seem limited indeed, defeating the one of the objectives of the Act.

Appointments are for specified terms subject to reappointment with the terms of appointment, remuneration, etc, being determined by the President after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

The principal requirement of the Act is that designated persons set out in Schedule I of the Act must submit annually by June 30, a statement of the income, assets and liabilities for the preceding calendar year of themselves, their spouse and unmarried children under the age of eighteen. Assets and liabilities include those held in Guyana as well as those held abroad. The statements by persons other than Commissioners are to be submitted to the Commission while members of the Commission are required to submit their statement to the President. Persons who are not designated in the Act but who are in public life may also be required to submit a similar statement if a complaint has been lodged with the Commission. Section 28 (3) has the effect of discouraging certain kinds of complaints and provides for penalties for complaints that are frivolous, mischievous or spiteful.

Persons who must file statements
The President of Guyana; The Speaker of the National Assembly; Ministers including Ministers of State; Secretary to the Cabinet; Parliamentary Secretaries; Members of the National Assembly; Members of the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs; Members of the Regional Democratic Councils; Clerk of the National Assembly; Attorney-General (if not a Member of the Cabinet); Head of the Presidential Secretariat; Director of Protocol, Office of the President; Chief of Protocol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Permanent Secretaries; Ombudsman; Director of Public Prosecutions; Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions; Solicitor-General; Deputy Solicitor-General; Chief Parliamentary Counsel; Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel; Auditor General; Deputy Auditor General; Secretary to the Treasury; Deputy Secretary to the Treasury; Commissioner of Police; Deputy Commissioner of Police; Chief of Staff, Guyana Defence Force; Director General, Guyana National Service; Commandant, Guyana People’s Militia; Members, Elections Commission; Members, Judicial Service Commission; Members, Public Service Commission; Members, Police Service Commission; Members, Teaching Service Commission; Members, Public Service Appellate Tribunal; Police Complaints Authority; Heads of Diplomatic Missions of Guyana accredited to any other country or any international organization; Governor, Deputy Governor and Heads of Division of the Bank of Guyana; Managing Directors and Managers of State owned or controlled banks; Heads of all Government Departments; Commissioner of Lands and Surveys; Deputy Commissioner of Lands and Surveys; Commissioner of Geology and Mines; Deputy Commissioner of Geology and Mines; Commissioner of Forests; Deputy Commissioner of Forests; Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Comptroller of Customs and Excise; Deputy Comptroller of Customs and Excise; Judges of the Supreme Court; Presidential Advisors; Magistrates; Commissioner of Title; Registrar of the Supreme Court; Registrar of Deeds; State Solicitor, Official Receiver and Public Trustee; Chief Planning Officer; Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Heads of Departments, Public Corporations Secretariat; Chairmen, Managing Directors, Chief Executive Officers, General Managers and Heads of Departments of all public corporations, and other bodies corporate and agencies (including companies and bodies established by or under any statute) owned by the State or in which the controlling interest is vested in the State or in any agency on behalf of the State; Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Deans of Faculties of the University of Guyana; Registrar General; Chief Elections Officer and Commissioner of Registration; Mayors and Deputy Mayors and Town Clerks of the City of Georgetown, Town of New Amsterdam and other towns; Members of the Integrity Commission; Regional Executive Officer and Heads of Departments of Regional Democratic Councils.