…urges revision of document
Transparency Institute Guyana Incorporated (TIGI) has red-flagged a number of loopholes with the proposed amendments to the Integrity Commission Act and the Ministerial Code of Conduct, after being invited to review the documents.
TIGI was invited to review the proposals by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo in February. The review, which was completed by April 3, strongly urged that the proposals be reconsidered and reformed along the lines of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
The fact that the anti-corruption organisation found a number of faults with the proposals comes against the backdrop of the already prolonged period of crafting the Code of Conduct.
Code of Conduct
A committee was appointed in 2015 to review and strengthen the draft Code of Conduct. Last year, Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman had stated while handing over the document to the Prime Minister that the commission had reviewed similar documents from Africa, Europe and other parts of the Caribbean.
But TIGI was critical about the overall lack of specificity in the language used to craft the Code, leaving loopholes open for Ministers and others governed by it to escape sanctions. It noted that “this lack of specificity appears as low commitment to integrity in public office and it can ultimately impede the effectiveness of the Code and erode public confidence”.
For one thing, TIGI blasted the fact that Article Eight of the Code only referenced sexual misconduct while performing official duties. According to TIGI, “this is an unnecessary and undesirable restriction”.
The organisation made it clear that sexual misconduct, whether on or off duty, must disqualify anyone from continuing to hold the post of a public official.
TIGI also highlighted that while there was focus on breaches of the Code, the President, David Granger and the Minister of State, Joseph Harmon were identified as the relevant authorities for administering disciplinary action.
However, the group said, the Code was silent on specific penalties for breaches. This thereby left these two officials with the responsibility to determine the penalties. TIGI noted that instead of leaving this to the will of the very people the Code would govern, specific penalties for some breaches should be laid out in the Code.
“This will improve public confidence in the process. The Code itself needs to be fleshed out in much greater detail and we strongly recommend taking guidance from model legislation such as the UNCAC.”
According to TIGI, the administration of the Code of Conduct, as part of the Integrity Commission Act, requires a functional Commission. The transparency group urged that this link be solidified now.
The group also urged against identifying the Minister of State, which it noted was done in Article 12. Instead, TIGI urged that references to a “relevant authority” be maintained where appropriate, as Harmon’s stint as Minister of State was only temporary.
Other problems that TIGI identified were the lack of specific references to a time limit for resolving conflicts of interest involving Ministers and public officials in Article Four. It noted that phrases such as “as soon as practicable” could lead to abuse.
But that is not all. The Code allows the public official to take reasonable steps to avoid and resolve the conflict. TIGI noted the danger of this, especially in a case where a blood relative was involved.
The group also disagreed with the Code stating that public officials shall not receive gifts on conditionality. TIGI stated that this rule should be made absolute for the next 10 years, unless the gift was being received on behalf of the State.
Integrity Commission
TIGI observed in its review that whenever a report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), “that individual must submit a report to the President and the Commission about actions taken against the individual pursuant to the report from the Commission”.
It also observed that the disciplinary body to which the Commission would submit recommendations was not specified in the principal Act.
In addition, TIGI noted that it observed that the nature of the disciplinary action to be taken would be determined by the relevant body responsible for disciplinary action. This, it said, happens even if the Commission makes recommendations.
TIGI then called for the complete removal of an entire section of the document, stating that it should be enough for the Commission to be able to reject frivolous complaints. It also criticised conferral of power on the Minister to make recommendations. Instead, TIGI called for the Commission to make recommendations for regulations.
In light of this, the group called for all references to regulations by the Minister in the principal act and the Code of Conduct to be removed.
