Last week, the controversy-ridden Integrity Commission found itself embroiled in more difficulties as a newspaper advertisement appeared immediately after the dissolution of the Tobago House of Assembly showing chairman Ken Gordon and chief secretary Orville London in a very convivial light.
The immediate significance of this was not lost on the national community owing to the recent announcement of an investigation into some financial decisions of the THA and the start of the THA election campaign.
UNC chairman Jack Warner called for the immediate resignation of Ken Gordon as chairman of the Integrity Commission or for the President to remove him from office as the advertisement appeared to portray an image of London being endorsed by Gordon at a time when the THA is being investigated by the commission and London is seeking re-election to the THA.
The response from Gordon and the Integrity Commission was swift. They countered that no such endorsement was intended and that there were several other pictures available and that this one just happened to have been chosen. The commission admitted its error.
The upshot of all of this is that once again the administrative incompetence of the Integrity Commission has been exposed. This is a body that is trying to inspire confidence in the national community to trust them through an essay competition and other initiatives. They cannot even approve a politically-correct advertisement as they bungle their way from controversy to controversy.
The tragedy is that this administrative incompetence has dogged the commission over the years to the extent that matters have ended up before the courts of this country whether it be past or present with potential for the future as well. Who approved the advertisement? Will the commission practise the kind of transparency that it demands from the society, or is it above all of us?
This is important to pursue because the commission has also taken the position that it will not give reasons for its decisions as was the case involving the allegations referred to it in respect of the Prime Minister's sister and her overseas travel with the Prime Minister (for which the commission gave clearance).
Last Friday there was a march for good governance. The centrepiece of the parade was the (in)famous Section 34 that has commanded media attention since the beginning of September. A comment was made about the absence of diversity among the marchers and just about everybody who commented on it took the bait to respond to that comment, thereby changing the conversation.
So much for what the march was supposed to be about. There must be balance in arguments about good governance so that it is not just a personal attack on the Prime Minister, her Attorney General and her Minister of National Security.
One of the subjects of good governance must be the incompetence of the Integrity Commission. If there is one institution in this country that has a consistent track record of poor governance it is the Integrity Commission. Dr Rowley was a victim of this some years ago.
The last three chairmen of the Integrity Commission have all resigned in controversial circumstances (John Martin, Henry Charles and Eric St Cyr). There is currently litigation before the courts in relation to the commission. Now there is a controversy about a politically-incorrect advertisement involving the THA and the commission.
Section 34 and the Integrity Commission could fit together comfortably. The Prime Minister took action to rectify the problem of Section 34 with full disclosure to the national community. Decisive action was taken.
The Attorney General did not deviate from the lawful exercise of Cabinet authority and the public servants in the Office of the chief parliamentary counsel faithfully prepared the draft instruments for presidential signature and the Cabinet secretariat would have faithfully checked the instrument against the Cabinet minute for accuracy prior to presidential signature.
There was no failure of oversight and the public servants acted within the confines of the law as determined by a lawful instruction from the Cabinet. The Attorney General did not countermand this legitimate exercise of power that was based on a statute that was properly passed by all parliamentarians on all sides of the Parliament and a decision of the Cabinet based on a representation made to it by the then Justice Minister.
Subsequently, there was a decision to recall Parliament to rectify an error that was realised after the public servants had efficiently carried out their duties. That action led to a repeal of the controversial section. The Justice Minister, who had full constitutional responsibility for all of this, was removed after the repeal. The Attorney General took the heat for his shortcomings and then some.
The Integrity Commission has attained high levels of incompetence and administrative failure, but somehow seems to survive the wrath of those who talk about wanting "good governance." If the argument about good governance is to have any credibility, it must also extend to the Integrity Commission in order to be fair and balanced, otherwise this is just politics as usual.