Local Transparency watchdog, Transparency International Guyana Incorporated (TIGI) said it has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Integrity Commission Act and recommended that the Act be modified to eliminate the ‘terror clause’ and remove the power bestowed on the minister.

The body which was invited by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo in February to review the proposed amendments to the Integrity Commission Act and Code of Conduct for Ministers of Government, Members of the National Assembly and Public Office Holders noted quite early in its assessment that the Act does not give the authority or power to the Integrity Commission to impose sanctions on Ministers of Government or any other public officials though its main responsibilities are to conduct investigations whenever complaints are submitted.

Additionally, the Commission is required to obtain disclosures of assets and finances of Ministers and their immediate families within identified timeframes of taking office and each year after. In fact, TIGI made it clear in a statement to the media that Ministers are required to disclose assets and finances and to do otherwise is unlawful.
However, the Integrity Commission is non-functional and has been for a while; something the body described as a “grave shortcoming that should be addressed immediately.” It means therefore that when public officials fail to make disclosures in accordance with the Act a tribunal could be established to investigate.

Moreover, when citizens complain against the actions of public officials, the Commission has the power to investigate and then submit its findings and recommendations via a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who will then determine criminal liability. The Commission may also submit a report to the relevant body responsible for disciplinary action for whatever actions that body deems necessary. It is important to note that when a report is submitted to the DPP, the said report must be submitted to the President and the Commission about actions taken against the individual.
However, the disciplinary body which the Commission submits recommendations is not specified in the principal Act and the nature of the disciplinary actions to be taken is determined by the relevant body responsible for disciplinary action even if the Commission made recommendations, TIGI stated.

“Ultimately, the Commission has no power to determine any courses of actions to be taken against individuals and there are no guarantees that its recommendations will be executed under the Act. However, TIGI believes that disciplinary actions should be undertaken pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission when explicit articulation in the Code of Conduct is absent.”
TIGI in its assessment also noted that a complaint about a public official may be made in person or by means of a registered mail to the Commission. “However, the Principal Act includes a terror clause. Section 28, subsection 3 specifies a penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars and a prison term of two months for persons who make complaints that are “frivolous, mischievous or spiteful”.”

The legislation specifically states that the nature of the complaint for which the person is found guilty shall be published in a daily newspaper at the expense of the person. “The motivation for this provision can hardly be described in civil terms and any description of it will be a euphemism. It is meant to deter complaints and ignores the fact that the Integrity Commission is responsible for investigating. It provides pre-emptive protection by instilling fear,” said TIGI as it has recommended the deletion of Section 28.
However, Section 29 indicates that the Commission will reject complaints that are determined to be frivolous or addresses issue outside of its foci. “TIGI believes that this latter provision is enough and we call for complete deletion of section 28 from the Integrity Commission Act.”

Meanwhile, the Transparency body noted the provisions in Section 39 which confers power on the Minister to make regulations and deemed it “misplaced and inimical to a meaningful integrity legislation” as it contradicts the establishment of an independent Integrity Commission. As a result, TIGI has recommended that “regulations be made by instruction or recommendation from the Integrity Commission to the Minister. All references to regulations by the Minister in the Principal Act and the Code of Conduct therefore need to be removed.”
As it relates to the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the transparency body suggested that there be more specificity so as to strengthen the provisions relative to the penalties for breaches. The proposed Code of Conduct has provided several definitions for what has been described as the ‘ten principles of public life’.

Those principles are: accountability, dignity, diligence, duty, honour, integrity, loyalty, objectivity, responsibility and transparency. However, the transparency watchdog sought to highlight some issues with the definitions of some terms and made recommendations. In the proposed Code of Conduct, Integrity speaks to public officials and their close family members upon the assumption of office declaring their private interests relative to the duties of the public officer and other interests as required by the Integrity Commission Act and any other law.

However, TIGI finds that while the definition targets conflict of interest, it in effect dilutes the Principal Act relative to Financial Disclosure and may create a loophole for avoiding disclosures of assets and income. As such, “TIGI advocates firmly for preservation of the intent of the Act through articulation of its full requirements with respect to disclosures in the definition of Integrity.”