THE Government of Guyana (GoG) remains open to constructive criticism of the draft Code of Conduct for Ministers and Senior Public Servants, says Minister of State, Joseph Harmon.
And this is in spite of the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP)’s outright refusal to contribute to the crafting of the document, a position that the government is not too happy with.
Speaking on Wednesday at the Annual Administrative and Professional Seminar held at the Pegasus Hotel, Kingston, Minister Harmon said:“The government has noted with great disappointment the outright rejection of the draft Code of Conduct by the parliamentary opposition, and its decision not to participate in the process to arrive at a final version.”
The purpose of the draft Code of Conduct, which is currently the subject of stakeholder consultations, he said, is to ensure maximum professionalism and high standards of ethics in public office.
The invitation extended to all stakeholders, including the Opposition, he said, provided an opportunity to contribute positively to the enhancement of ethics within public office.
In the circumstances, he has a very dim view of the stance taken by the Opposition.
“It can only be concluded that the Opposition’s refusal to participate in the process is yet another of its efforts to thwart the establishment of transparency and probity in public life in our country,” Minister Harmon declared.
The Minister of State made it clear that with improved professional ethics in public office, public confidence and trust will be engendered.
He said the feedback that has been received by way of press release from the Guyana Bar Association, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), as well as Transparency Institute Guyana Incorporated (TIGI) have all highlighted a number of issues, but he did not eleborate on the matter.
THE NEXT MOVE
Asked at the end of the seminar what might be the government’s next move, given the opposition’s position on the draft Code of Conduct, Minister Harmon said:“Once the consultations have been finished; once we have got the opinion expressed by civil society, we will make whatever amendments need to be made to the document and have it laid in the National Assembly.”
And while he was not in a position to say when the revised document would be laid in the National Assembly, he gave every assurance that stakeholders will be given enough time “to have their say, and for us to take on board the opinions that have been expressed before we actually proceed with the next step.”
As to the Opposition’s concerns about the powers being vested in President David Granger and himself, Minister Harmon said it is important that the Opposition members read the document in a holistic manner so as to understand that the authority given is not inimical to the interest of the development of a sound Public Service, or inimical to the interest of probity and transparency in public life.
Meanwhile, the GHRA has described the revised Draft Code of Conduct for ministers and other public officers as “too bland and generalised”, and had stressed last month that the document makes no mention of the declaration of assets.
In a statement to the media, the GHRA had said that it was only by reference to the Integrity Commission that inference could be drawn about assets, and noted that while it is not illegal, the absence of explicit reference to the issue is peculiar, as “in the public’s mind, it is the raison d’etre of a Code of Conduct”.

WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE
The GHRA, like other stakeholders, among them TIGI, has publicly stated its concerns with the draft Code. One section in particular that the body found unacceptable is Article 8, which speaks to Sexual Misconduct. The GHRA believes that it is unacceptable in its entirety, as sexual harassment, or misconduct, ought to disqualify a person from holding public office.
TIGI has also assessed the Articles contained in the proposed Code of Conduct and noted that Article 3, which stipulates that public officials shall not receive gifts that have the potential to compromise unbiased execution of their duties or as rewards, should be examined keenly.
The body has noted that Guyana is currently in a poor state as it relates to corruption perception, and believes it would be “fair to establish a policy of accepting no gifts at all (except those on behalf of the State) for at least the next 10 years”.
Article 4 of the Code focuses on conflict of interest. In addition to making non-specific references to timeframes for resolving conflict of interest, with phrases such as “as soon as practicable” and “as soon as possible” which can lead to abuse, it confers responsibility on the public official to take reasonable steps to avoid, resolve and disclose any material conflicts of interest that arise or are likely to arise.
“Placing the responsibility on the person in the conflict of interest situation to take reasonable steps to address it may thwart the efficacy of the provision,” the organisation said, and as such has recommended that conflict of interest be reported to a relevant body, or individual, and that a decision on how to proceed be made for that person.
“This should apply especially in cases where there is a blood relationship or social relationship existing between a decision-maker and the object of the decision,” it said.
In the case of Article 8, which deals with sexual misconduct, the TIGI believes that it is an unnecessary and undesirable restriction, in that “sexual misconduct on or off duty must disqualify anyone from continuing to hold the post as a public official.”
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
TIGI has noted, too, that while Article 12 focuses on breaches of the Code, and identifies the President and the Minister of State as the relevant authorities for administering disciplinary actions, “it is silent on specific penalties for breaches, thereby leaving such determinations entirely up to these individuals.”
That aside, TIGI noted that the identification of the Minister of State as one of the persons to administer disciplinary action “neglects the potentially temporary nature of this post”.
“The Act itself refers to the ‘relevant authority charged with the exercise of disciplinary control’, and this should be maintained in the Code of Conduct to accommodate the flexible nature of public administration in the country.”
Additionally, the TIGI believes that penalties for some breaches should be enshrined in the Code, so that the efficacy of the Code itself does not rely entirely on the will or caprice of the responsible individuals.
“This will improve public confidence in the process,” the organisation says, adding: “The Code itself needs to be fleshed out in much greater detail, and we strongly recommend taking guidance from model legislation such as the UN Convention against Corruption.”
It has also been recommended that Section 31, subsection (4) of the Principal Act be modified to guarantee that disciplinary actions under the Act will be taken pursuant to the specifications of the Code or to the recommendations of the Integrity Commission in the absence of such prescriptions. “TIGI believes that administration of the Code of Conduct which is part of the Integrity Commission Act must require a functional Integrity Commission and this link should be solidified now.”
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo invited stakeholders to review both the Integrity Commission Act and the revised draft Code of Conduct for Government Ministers, Members of the National Assembly and public office holders.