-Jagdeo

President Bharrat Jagdeo has said that there are several prospective candidates for the Chairmanship of the Integrity Commission, which has been a vacant post for almost four years since the resignation of Bishop Randolph George.

Asked at a recent press conference why the government has not yet named a chairman for the commission, Jagdeo stated that there are several potential candidates. However, he did not identify any of them and explained that he is not closely following the issue. He advised that this newspaper direct its questions to Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon. “…They have several candidates. I have not been tracking this personally. When you meet Luncheon – you see him every week – ask Luncheon about that matter,” Jagdeo said.

President Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Robert Corbin had started consultations last year to reconstitute the commission. Three members were subsequently appointed but there was no conclusion on the issue of a chairman of the body. The government’s initial nominee, Dr James Rose, withdrew his name. The consultations began after Corbin rejected an ultimatum issued by the President, to have Members of Parliament submit statements of their income and assets to the Integrity Commission or face the possibility of criminal charges. The President also said he would urge the Integrity Commission to publish the names of defaulting MPs in the national newspapers. In rejecting the ultimatum, Corbin questioned the legality of the commission.

At a recent news briefing, Corbin lambasted the government for its actions in relation to the establishment about the Integrity Commission and raised concerns about a recent motion presented in the National Assembly. Corbin said that after the government had indicated that it was wiling to begin consultations on the matter of the commission he participated in the discussions and had rejected the government’s nomination for chairman after consulting with other groups in the country.

The PNCR Leader said after he became ill last May and was taken overseas for treatment, a letter was dispatched to the General Secretary of the PNCR communicating the administration’s anxiousness to conclude consultations with the Opposition Leader on the matter.  He said that since his return at the end of May, he has not been approached by the government on this issue.

Questioned as to whether there was an absence of political will on his part to have the commission properly constituted, Corbin rejected this and said the non-constitution of the commission was totally the fault of the President. “I have no authority and I refuse to be maligned as [being] partly or in any way responsible for this delay since they are totally without my capacity,” Corbin said. “I have already told you that this is not something that I can initiate. It is within the full prerogative of the President. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition. That is why the matter was taken to the court…how the constitution is written there are clear guidelines of steps that should be

taken for meaningful consultations,” Corbin stated. Nowhere in the legislation can the person to be consulted initiate anything. It has to be initiated by the person responsible for consultation, who is the President,” Corbin added.

Recently Prime Minister Samuel Hinds had tabled a motion in the National Assembly intended to have MPs declare annual declarations of income to the Integrity Commission or face disciplinary action. However, the motion was deferred after the Opposition expressed objections to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

During the March 20 sitting, AFC Leader Raphael Trotman tried to ascertain from Hinds who the chairman of the commission was. The Prime Minister told the House that despite the Chairman’s resignation some years ago, the other three members of the Commission – Fazeel Ferouz, Savitri Sukhai and Nigel Hazel – have been meeting.

In relation to this motion, Corbin accused the administration of “exploiting the privilege of a government motion” and argued that the motion was not related to any area of government business since it related solely to the disciplinary powers of the National Assembly. He also queried why the government would bring this particular motion connected with the Integrity Commission since this body “has been allowed to float aimlessly in the stormy seas of unconstitutionally for over six years.”