After being elected to office a year ago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar stayed at the home of her friends Ralph and Maureen Gopaul before moving into the Prime Minister's residence. The circumstances of that situation are still to be declared to the Integrity Commission and their relevance as gifts of value offered to the Prime Minister decided on, but before that could happen, the Gopaul's business emerged as a preferred supplier of a transportation service for the National Petroleum company, in position to displace the incumbent supplier.
It proved to be quite an untidy situation in the public mind and an outrageous one from the perspective of politicians and the debate quickly escalated. Asked to comment on the matter, Professor Eric St Cyr stated, after giving what he must have imagined were appropriate caveats, that the whole matter might have been avoided if the Prime Minister had stayed at a hotel instead of accepting the hospitality of her friends.
Unfortunately, there are no caveats or Chinese walls that can appropriately separate the private from the professional for the head of the Integrity Commission when he chooses to make such a definitive a statement on a case likely to come under his purview. It would be the same as the Commissioner of Police offering a personal opinion to the media on a case still to come before the courts. Such a statement would be unthinkable. St Cyr's comments are quite simply inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to the course of natural justice. The storm of accusations that have ensued since the statement went public suggest that St Cyr's decision to offer such a definitive comment is widely viewed as, at best, inadvisable and at worst, potentially partisan.
Commentators on the situation have suggested that it might be possible for the Integrity Commission head to avoid further contamination of any case that might be brought before the Commission by recusing himself from any deliberations on the matter. It's possible that Professor St Cyr had become used to offering his opinion on political matters as an academic and researcher in the social sciences, but it is critical that he understands, quite quickly, the difference between being an independent observer of local politics and the requirements of his role as a neutral arbiter of the requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act. There are critical differences between commenting on governance and being deeply embedded in the process, and more critically, participating in the DNA of governance itself.
It is not as if Professor St Cyr is not expected to comment on matters related to Integrity. As the head of the Integrity Commission, articulating the decisions of the commission and the rationale of its proceedings are clearly matters that demand the clear and articulate explanation that the experienced academic can bring to the office. In choosing to offer an opinion before a case had been presented to the Commission, St Cyr misunderstood his role to the extent that he believed that it was possible to offer a comment on a matter of public integrity in any capacity beyond his role as the head of the Integrity Commission. He was wrong in thinking it was possible to split such a finely aligned hair. It is not necessary to have made an error so egregious that it warrants dismissal for a man of Professor St Cyr's prominence and reputation to acknowledge an incident of misspeaking that has caused offence, annoyance and confusion.
To that end, it's clear that the Integrity Commission head should apologise for his own error of judgement in commenting on an apparent political lapse prior to a case being made before the Commission. Acknowledging that error would go some distance in restoring the faith of the public in the reputation and role of the Integrity Commission and its leadership.