Reproduced from NEWSDAY:
By concurrently paying lip service to press freedom and signalling its intention to continue its witch-hunt of reporters revealing information on the conduct of its officials, the Integrity Commission has signalled to the public of Trinidad and Tobago that it believes its existence more vital to the country’s democracy than a free, unfettered press.
By concurrently paying lip service to press freedom and signalling its intention to continue its witch-hunt of reporters revealing information on the conduct of its officials, the Integrity Commission has signalled to the public of Trinidad and Tobago that it believes its existence more vital to the country’s democracy than a free, unfettered press.
We were not aware we were in contest for our constitutional rights, but that’s a bold assertion from an organisation that hasn’t functioned efficiently or without conflict since the proclamation of the Integrity Act in 2000, a Commission which has botched an investigation into a former minister, which has seen its chairmen commit a series of unforced errors, and which has witnessed heads roll faster than in 18th century guillotine France.
It is the media that have exposed corruption and helped to construct democracy in this country while the Commission was collapsing, afflicted by internal convulsions or embarrassing conflicts of interest. The Integrity Commission has not contributed to good governance; it has made a farce of it and the sideshow continues today.
It is our view that if this country wants an Integrity Commission worthy of the people’s respect, and capable of carrying out its constitutional duties in the absence of chaos, the present legislation will require urgent amending. Its first and most glaring deficiency is the composition of the Commission.
It is the media that have exposed corruption and helped to construct democracy in this country while the Commission was collapsing, afflicted by internal convulsions or embarrassing conflicts of interest. The Integrity Commission has not contributed to good governance; it has made a farce of it and the sideshow continues today.
It is our view that if this country wants an Integrity Commission worthy of the people’s respect, and capable of carrying out its constitutional duties in the absence of chaos, the present legislation will require urgent amending. Its first and most glaring deficiency is the composition of the Commission.
The prerequisites for the posts are frothy and the exemptions need to be widened. The Integrity Act hazily defines the commissioners as “persons of integrity and high standing” and prohibits public officials from occupying the posts. It does not preclude former politicians from serving, nor does it recognise or identify potential conflicts of interest in the appointments of commissioners.
The recent raid on this newspaper’s offices is evidence enough that the Commission’s composition needs altering, the nuts and bolts of the job requirements need tightening.
The recent raid on this newspaper’s offices is evidence enough that the Commission’s composition needs altering, the nuts and bolts of the job requirements need tightening.
The post of chairman should be defined in more detail and expanded, having regard to the almost unlimited powers the Act bestows on the body. The chairman should be required to have legal training or insight and his or her appointment subject to the parliament’s scrutiny, since the Act permits the commissioners to ignore justice and equity and sit in their own cause, as they have in the wake of the Newsday report on the row among commissioners. He must not be an ex minister or MP.
The powers the commissioners enjoy also need to be revisited: they may arbitrarily decide a violation of the Act has taken place and sanction police action, and they are subject to no one’s authority but their own when conducting their probes. We have seen unparalleled abuse of power in the probe of Dr Keith Rowley and in this recent inquiry.
The powers the commissioners enjoy also need to be revisited: they may arbitrarily decide a violation of the Act has taken place and sanction police action, and they are subject to no one’s authority but their own when conducting their probes. We have seen unparalleled abuse of power in the probe of Dr Keith Rowley and in this recent inquiry.
The Commissioner of Police is being blamed for Thursday’s scandalous assault on press freedom, but while the men at work were his officers, were they really reporting to the Commissioner or the commission?
The lacunae in the Act which leaves the watchdog completely unfettered means the Anti-Corruption Bureau is not obliged to report to the Commissioner of Police during an integrity probe, only to the Integrity Commission, whose investigations are subject to the control of no authority.
The Commission may make use of the service of any law enforcement agency as it sees fit, and demand any document it thinks relevant from any person, including journalists. It can command any citizen to hand over within a specified time, all books, records, accounts, reports, data, stored electronically it deems relevant to an inquiry and if refused, levy a fine of $150,000 or jail them for three years. There are no exemptions for journalists reporting in the public interest — the Constitution be damned.
The draconian bill was drafted to give the Commission teeth and provide access to information on assets and liabilities hidden by dishonest public officials, but there is enormous potential for its power to be corrupted, especially as the Act also grants commissioners immunity from action or suit for conduct within its ambit. The Integrity Commission has been handed a lot of rights, but little responsibility and there is no redress for citizens whose rights it has abused. It is a law onto itself.
Consequently, the Commission cannot seek to dissociate itself from the chain of events or evidence triggered by its decision on December 20 to call in the police. During this probe, the police would have been reporting to the Commission and it would have been given notice of the raid, or it would not have simultaneously asked the President to appoint a tribunal into vice-chairman Gladys Gafoor, announced on the very day, unless it felt certain it was on the verge of discovering key evidence.
The Commission may make use of the service of any law enforcement agency as it sees fit, and demand any document it thinks relevant from any person, including journalists. It can command any citizen to hand over within a specified time, all books, records, accounts, reports, data, stored electronically it deems relevant to an inquiry and if refused, levy a fine of $150,000 or jail them for three years. There are no exemptions for journalists reporting in the public interest — the Constitution be damned.
The draconian bill was drafted to give the Commission teeth and provide access to information on assets and liabilities hidden by dishonest public officials, but there is enormous potential for its power to be corrupted, especially as the Act also grants commissioners immunity from action or suit for conduct within its ambit. The Integrity Commission has been handed a lot of rights, but little responsibility and there is no redress for citizens whose rights it has abused. It is a law onto itself.
Consequently, the Commission cannot seek to dissociate itself from the chain of events or evidence triggered by its decision on December 20 to call in the police. During this probe, the police would have been reporting to the Commission and it would have been given notice of the raid, or it would not have simultaneously asked the President to appoint a tribunal into vice-chairman Gladys Gafoor, announced on the very day, unless it felt certain it was on the verge of discovering key evidence.
At any point in the probe, it could have instructed the police not to continue along their investigative line of demanding a reporter’s source and to pursue alternative methods to finding the leak/s. It did not. It set them loose on the press.
The government and opposition have expressed outrage at Thursday’s raid, which cast a long sombre shadow over TT. If they do not wish to see a repeat of last week’s violation of the media, the Act must be immediately revisited to redefine the qualities and qualifications of the chairmen and to delineate tighter operational parameters for the Commission’s probes. We may have created a monster.
The government and opposition have expressed outrage at Thursday’s raid, which cast a long sombre shadow over TT. If they do not wish to see a repeat of last week’s violation of the media, the Act must be immediately revisited to redefine the qualities and qualifications of the chairmen and to delineate tighter operational parameters for the Commission’s probes. We may have created a monster.
No comments:
Post a Comment