The APNU/AFC coalition has become embroiled in several controversies – manufactured or not – which to a large extent are self-inflicted and could have been avoided if they had their promised “Code of Conduct” in place. When the two parties were in Opposition, they were very strident in their denunciations of the actions of PPP/C Ministers, MPs and officials in the latter’s performance of their duties. They argued quite cogently that what was needed was a “Code of Conduct” with “teeth” so that there would be clear guidelines for the actors and the enforcers to ensure the country’s business was conducted transparently and ethically.
The Code of Conduct was promised to be promulgated within their first 100 days of assuming office, which occurred in May 2015: “#16 – A Code of Conduct will be established for Parliamentarians, Ministers and others holding high positions in government public office to abide by, including mechanisms for demitting office if in violation of the Code of Conduct.” Mentioned in July, it was not until September of that year when Minister Raphael Trotman, upon being questioned by reporters said there was a “draft” code but, “We believe it should be opened up for public comment, criticism, critique and to be distilled and refined. Hopefully, coming out of it we get a stronger document.”
The “draft” Code of Conduct was finally released the following month and asserted it was underpinned by 10 principles: accountability, dignity, diligence, duty, honour, integrity, loyalty, objectivity, responsibility, and transparency. It was replete with moral exhortations drafted at such a high level of generality that it mocked the notion of a “Code” meant to bring down sanctions if transgressed.
For instance: “Public office holders have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law, against discrimination and sexual harassment, and to act with propriety on all occasions in accordance with the public trust and confidence placed in them. Public office holders have a general duty to act in the interest of the nation as a whole and owe a special duty of care to their constituents, and citizens.”
In one area where it decided to be specific, the drafters of the Code felt that “gambling” was an action that needed to be curbed and enunciated: “Ministers, MPs and public office holders must not engage in frequent or excessive gambling with persons who have business dealings with the government as well as among colleagues, particularly with subordinates. If on social occasions where gambling (provided that the activity is legal) is considered unsociable, the amount of money involved should not be significant.”
Be as it may, the draft was now in the public domain of the website of the Office of the President. However, the Chief Whip of the major Opposition party, the PPP/C, complained they had not received a copy which was quite anomalous since “all MPs” were supposed to be covered. Recommendations were received from the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), the Bar Association and Transparency International of Guyana Inc (TIGI). The latter organisation suggested that a time line of a month be outlined within which ordinary citizens could be facilitated to give their input in a Town Hall setting. When releasing the draft back in November 2015, Minister Trotman had himself suggested such a forum.
Even the staunchest supporter of the government would have to conclude that the Code of Conduct is not high on the list of the government’s priorities. It is difficult to understand why there has been such lassitude is transmuting the Draft Code into a final enforceable document. Raphael Trotman was the Minister who released the Draft Code, and in the absence of any other information to the contrary is responsible for the present state of disarray in establishing the final Code of Conduct. President David Granger, as an ex-military man, must understand the need for clarity in guiding the actions of his officials. Action is needed now.
