Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on society. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations in human rights, distorts markets, erodes equality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human society to flourish. It hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic under performance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.
The introduction to last week’s article commented that the 50% increase in the salaries of Cabinet Ministers had created a tsunami of criticisms and condemnation from all sections of Guyanese society. Those criticisms and condemnations continued throughout the week, prompting the Ministers of Finance and Governance to issue statements of clarifications, and culminating in a protest in front of the Offices of the President and the Prime Minister. The President has since defended the increases which he considered an investment in good governance. He also felt that the decision would be borne out in the future as a prudent one.
The Government has increased the number of Ministers from 15 to 27 and has organised them into four categories: Junior Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, Vice-Presidents, and Prime Minister. Apart from this not being reflected in the election manifesto of the now ruling party, one finds it difficult, with the almost doubling of the number of Ministers, to appreciate how their workloads have increased to justify enhanced emoluments. In addition, if salary differentials have to be created among the above categories, why should the difference between Cabinet members and Junior Ministers be in the order of 50%? As regards Vice-Presidents, the public is yet to learn of their additional responsibilities to justify a further differential. The previous Administra-tion had already pitched the salaries of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General too high for there to be any consideration of an increase.
Politicians’ motivation to seek public office is influenced not so much by the level of compensation offered but rather the desire to render a service to the country, and to protect and defend the public interest. This is not to suggest that they should not be provided with reasonable salaries. However, one should not use the emoluments of members of the Judiciary as a reference point. These are highly qualified and experienced public servants whose appointments and conditions of service are determined by an independent constitutional agency.
In contrast, Cabinet determines the level of emoluments to be paid to Ministers, including themselves. Arguably, this represents a conflict of interest. Lest we forget, our great leaders of yesteryear – Forbes Burnham (Senior Counsel), Dr. Cheddi Jagan (accomplished dentist), Sir Fenton Ramsahoye (Senior Counsel), Sir Shridath Ramphal (Senior Counsel), Keith Massiah (Senior Counsel) Dr. Mohamed Shahabudeen (Senior Counsel) and Desmond Hoyte (Senior Counsel) have all made tremendous financial sacrifices in order to serve the nation and the public interest. Who can forget the late President Hoyte living at his humble abode in North Road instead of taking up residence at State House? The point is: one must not seek to equate the financial compensation of the professional with that of the politician.
Since the 11 May elections, the economy has slowed down considerably, not through any fault of the new Administration. Our per capita income of US$3,410 remains second lowest in the Caribbean and is less than a quarter of that of Trinidad and Tobago. Given this situation, one would expect some degree of restraint in public spending, and Cabinet needs to set the example in this regard. For decades, we have been operating with deficit budgeting, meaning that expenditure has always outstripped revenues earned, resulting in an ever-increasing public debt. This is not sustainable. We need to work towards a balanced budget.
I was taken aback by a statement that I was instrumental in aligning the salary of the Auditor General with that of the Chancellor. This is far from the truth. The Auditor General’s emoluments and other conditions of service have always been linked to those of the Judiciary and more specifically the Chief Justice, not the Chancellor as claimed. The Government had approved an increase in the salaries of members of the Judiciary. As a matter of principle, the Auditor General should have benefitted from the increase. However, this was not the case, and as a result, representation had to be made to the then Administration. Eventually, it was agreed to include the Auditor General. (There is a bigger story to this, which will be told at the appropriate time.)
The emoluments and conditions of service of the Auditor General are now set out in Section 8 of the Audit Act 2004. That section states that “The salary, superannuation, benefits and other conditions of service of the Auditor General shall be the same as those of the Chief Justice”. The draft legislation had provided for
qualification requirements for the Auditor General, but unfortunately these were removed from the final legislation. I demitted office in December 2004, and the Act was assented to in April 2005. I was therefore in no position to influence what happened thereafter, including the tax-free salary the Auditor General now enjoys. Indeed, I am of the view that no citizen should be exempt from taxation, including the President. President Obama pays his fair share of taxes, and when he demits office next year, his pension would also be subject to taxation.
Pervasiveness of corruption and ineffective anti-corruption mechanisms
At a recent meeting held in Geneva, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed concern about what it described as pervasive corruption in Guyana as well as ineffective anti-corruption mechanisms. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Government take concrete measures to promulgate anti-corruption laws in its fight against corruption. Since 2005 when it was first assessed on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), Guyana has scored poorly and was rated second lowest in the Caribbean, except for Haiti. Concerned about perceptions of high levels of corruption that existed in the Guyanese society, a group of civic-minded persons came together and formed the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc. (TIGI) in 2010, devoted to the promotion of good governance practices, enhanced transparency, greater accountability and strict adherence to the rule of law. As a reaction, the previous Administration showed the greatest degree of hostility to the group and every resource at its disposal, including State media, was used to unleash almost on daily basis barrages of attacks of TIGI’s members. They were treated as enemies of the State!
The UN body highlighted the devastating effect of corruption in citizens’ enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights, and cited the procurement of goods/services and the execution of works by public agencies as an area of serious concern for Guyana. With 70% of the National Budget devoted to public procurement, unfortunately our procurement systems remain weak. In recognition of this, the Constitution was amended in 2001 to provide for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission to provide the much-needed oversight of the procurement process to ensure competitiveness, equity and fairness in the award of public contracts. However, because of political wrangling as to whether Cabinet should continue to be involved, the stalemate remains to this day. Now that the tables have turned, it will be of interest to learn if the political Opposition will continue to insist on the retention of Cabinet’s “no objection” to the award of contracts in excess of $15 million. The constitutional amendment provides for Cabinet’s involvement to cease upon the establishment of the Commission, or to be progressively phased out.
The UN body commented on the weak institutional framework to fight corruption as well as the lack of a serious effort being made to carry out prosecution where evidence is found of corrupt behaviour. It also urged the Administration to address the root causes of corruption as well as to take measures to enhance transparency, to secure citizens’ participation in decision-making, to promote greater public accountability, and to ensure strict application of anti-corruption laws.
Guyana does not have any specific legislation to address the issue of corruption in government. This column has consistently advocated for such laws to be in place to provide for, among others, the establishment of an anti-corruption agency clothed with investigative and prosecuting powers. It also commented ad nauseam on the failure to have in place a fully functional Integrity Commission to scrutinize the annual financial returns of Ministers of the government, other Members of Parliament, senior public servants and officials involved in public procurement, and to investigate cases where there has been a mismatch between the return of an official and his/her observable lifestyle.
Preventing measures to combat corruption
Guyana is a signatory to the Inter-American Convention against Corruption and the United Nations Convention against Corruption. There are a number of preventive measures in these two conventions that the new Administration should readily embrace and/or strengthen where appropriate. These include:
(a) Measures to create, maintain and strengthen standards of conduct for the correct, honourable and proper fulfillment of public functions, including the prevention of conflicts of interest and the proper conservation and use of resources entrusted to government officials in the performance of their duties;
(b) Requirement for government officials to report to the appropriate authorities acts of corruption in the performance of public functions in order to preserve the public’s confidence in the integrity of public servants and government processes;
(c) Declaration of income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform public functions;
(d) Appropriate systems in place for government hiring to ensure openness, transparency, equity and fairness in the appointment and conditions of service of public officials;
(e) Appropriate systems for the acquisition of goods/services and the execution of works to ensure competitiveness, equity and efficiency of such systems;
(f) Adequate procedures for government revenue collection and control systems that deter corruption;
(g) Systems for protecting public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including the protection of their identities;
(h) Establishment of oversight bodies with a view to implementing modern mechanisms for preventing, detecting, punishing and eradicating acts of corruption;
(i) Measures to deter bribery of domestic and foreign government officials; and
(j) Mechanisms to encourage participation by civil society and non-governmental organisations in efforts to prevent corruption.
I close with the statement of former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan to the effect that the adoption of the UN Convention against Corruption will warn the corrupt that betrayal of the public trust will no longer be tolerated and that it will reaffirm the importance of core values such as honesty, respect for the rule of law, accountability and transparency in promoting development, and making the world a better place for all. Mr. Annan suggested that if the Convention is fully enforced, it will make a real difference to the quality of life of millions of people around the world, and by removing the greatest obstacles to development, it can help achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
It is time that Guyana re-dedicates its efforts towards ensuring full compliance with the requirements of these two anti-corruption conventions.
