The sub-committee that was recently tasked with examining the draft code of conduct for government ministers and other public officials has recommended that the regulations must also address private life.
The “re-worked” draft code was handed over to Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo last month by the chair of the committee, Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman. The committee, in its recommendations, which have been seen by this newspaper, do not make any major changes to the draft code, which had been made public.
However, the Guyana Bar Association (GBA)—which submitted proposals on the draft code—and the committee both recommended that the line, “This Code does not seek to regulate the conduct of public office holders in their private and personal lives,” be removed. The committee said that this paragraph must speak to private conduct.
Under the heading “integrity” in the draft code, which was prepared by Minister Trotman when his substantive post was Minister of Governance, it was stated that “Public office holders have a duty to declare any private interest relating to the discharge of their duties and responsibilities, and to ensure that their personal decisions and actions are not in conflict with the national interest.” The committee has now recommended that private interests and interests required by law must be declared and interests should be related to the discharge of duties at the time of entry into office.
And while the draft code had required that ministers would “collectively” have a basic responsibility “to take decisions only in the national interest, void of any forms of personal gain or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends,” the committee recommended that ministers should have both an “individual” and “collective” responsibility and that “associates” be included alongside family and friends.
The committee also recommended that “other forms of reward” should be removed from the section that deals with the acceptance of gifts and consideration be given to how more jurisdictions treat with the issue of gifts. It also recommended that the code aligns with the current law, which provides that gifts worth in excess of $10,000 be reported to the Integrity Commission.
Provision, it is recommended also, must be made for the inclusion of a definition for “conflict of interest” and this could be drawn from the Tasmanian and Trinidadian codes.
Further, it is also recommended that gambling not be isolated but captured in a clause that stipulates the kind of conduct required in private life.
In the draft code, it is stated that Ministers, Members of Parliament (MPs) and public office holders “must not engage in frequent or excessive gambling with persons who have business dealings with the Government as well as among colleagues, particularly with subordinates.” It adds, “If on social occasions where refusal of gambling (provided that the activity is legal) is considered unsociable, the amount of money involved should not be significant. Gambling in the Government’s premises, government venues, and locations where activities of the Government take place is strictly forbidden.”
Definition
It has been recommended by the committee that a single definition or comprehensive list is required for the group of persons identified as ministers, MPs and public office holders as referred to in the code. This recommendation comes in part from the Committee and the GBA.
In the draft code, it is stated that officials and staff are not allowed to disclose any classified or proprietary information to anyone without prior authorisation by the government. Officials and staff who have access to or are in control of such information should at all times provide adequate safeguards to prevent its abuse or misuse, it further stated. “Examples of misuse include disclosure of information in return for monetary rewards, or use of information for personal interest or business benefit. It should also be noted that unauthorised disclosure of any personal data may result in a breach of the personal data,” the draft said. The committee has subsequently recommended that the provisions be restructured and that the minister be assigned with the responsibility of implementing the safeguards. Under the heading of government resources, which deals with the misuse of such resources for personal gains or for political purposes, it was recommended that new provisions be installed guided by the Tasmanian Code and the original section be replaced.
The committee has also recommended replacing the original sections that deal with outside employment and compliance and that new provisions be installed guided by the Tasmanian and Indian codes, respectively. According to the compliance section in the draft code, those who breach the provisions can face disciplinary action or termination of appointment/ employment where warranted. The committee has recommended that those to whom the code will apply must be allowed a period “of transition and training for a uniformed application of the spirit and letter of the Code.” The code of conduct was promised by the coalition government, which had set itself the deadline of getting it done within the first 100 days in office. The draft code stipulates actions that could result in ministers, parliamentarians and other public office holders facing disciplinary action or being fired, including failure to declare conflicts of interest or accepting expensive gifts or “lavish” entertainment from persons doing business with government.
Last month, Nagamootoo said since the Integrity Commission Act already provides for the declaration of assets and for justification of assets belonging to persons holding public office and their relatives, it should be broadened to include the “prescription… for a code of conduct.” He had said too that it was to ensure that the government is not dealing with separate legal instruments regulating or monitoring the conduct of persons holding public office but rather there is one consolidated law that should be enforced. Nagamootoo had said too that the code would be sent to the chief parliamentary counsel for advice on whether it should be incorporated as an amendment to the Integrity legislation. There is no timeframe for when the process will be completed.
