by Francis Alexis

2 May 2006

Politicians, in government , control people's monies and determine the country's direction. Politicians, in or out of government , impact moral conduct.

Certain norms are therefore expected of frontline politicians , by law and by morality. Some norms require financial propriety ; others, sexual self-control; still others,social sobriety. These pursue accountability and transparency ; to lend credibility and legitimacy to our parliamentary system of government protecting freedom; to guarantee its preservation .

To ensure compliance with such norms, our system subjects frontline politicians to public scrutiny.

CRIMINAL PROCESS

At times, scrutiny of politicians is effected by the criminal process . A most striking example is the current Trinidadian case of Basdeo Panday. Trinidadian legislation requires politicians holding certain public offices to disclose their assets to the integrity commission, and makes non-disclosure a criminal offence.

Panday, as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, had allegedly not disclosed a bank account of his in London .. Scrutiny as to whether Panday had complied with the disclosure requirement was carried out by the criminal process. Panday was found guilty by the Chief Magistrate , and hit with the maximum penalty, 2 years imprisonment and $20T fine, plus confiscation of certain assets.

He has appealed. The penalty imposed on Panday, the maximum, may be reduced on appeal, if the conviction stands. But the Panday precedent would not escape the attention of many, showing that none should be above the law when it comes to subjecting politicians to public scrutiny. We in Grenada too have had instances of the criminal process scrutinising politicians. Certain complaints against Kenny Lalsingh while a Minister under Nicholas Brathwaite were referred to the criminal process.

The police investigated ; but the matters did not reach the courts. Also, certain acts done by Michael Baptiste while a Minister were referred to the police after he ceased to be a Minister, and proceeded to the criminal courts, where they still are.

STATUTORY INQUIRY

Scrutiny of politicians may be by inquiry. There have been many inquires in Grenada. Usually they are statutory, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act ; and they are independent, that is, conducted by persons from outside of the political party to which the alleged wrongdoer belongs.

During colonalism, such an inquiry found squandermania under Eric Gairy . During associated statehood , the Duffus Commission reported brutality by irregular police aides and failure by certain state functionaries to uphold the rule of law in bloody days under Eric Gairy . In the post-independence era, the Worrell Commission set up by Herbert Blaize found wrongdoings in certain state operations; the Piper Commission, set up under Keith Mitchell , inquired into the sale by the Nicholas Brathwaite government of some government shares in Grenlec , but found nothing to condemn its targets; and the Cheltenham Commission also set up under Mitchell is still inquiring into how much money Mitchell received in a briefcase from Eric Resteiner sometime somewhere in Switzerland.

NON-STATUTORY INQUIRY

There has been a third category of inquiries scrutinising politicians . While NNP under Herbert Blaize was in government, an inquiry , not of independent persons, but of NNP executive members, was set up non-statutorily to inquire into alleged misconduct regarding cement by one of its members who was a Minister, Kenny Lagsingh.

The inquiry rapped Lalsingh. Blaize disciplined him. Practically , the only inquiry option a party in opposition can by itself implement to investigate alleged misconduct by one of its members is non-statutory. Even so, though, the party has options. The inquiry may be by independent persons, or it may be by its own members. That Lalsingh in Blaize's NNP Government was disciplined by Blaize on a non-statutory internal inquiry by NNP executive members confounds the thesis that such an inquiry is necessarily a white-wash, guaranteed to let a politician off the hook no matter what.

Yet, surely, given its composition, this form of inquiry runs the danger more than others of being viewed with healthy skepticism. And this is bolstered by any real mis-step.

WATCH THOSE MIS-STEPS

Consider the recent NDC non-statutory internal inquiry by NDC executive members into allegations of financial impropriety by NDC Opposition MP Kenrick Fullerton . The inquiry found that certain shortcomings in Fullerton were "undoubtedly unacceptable" , and that allegations occasioning the investigation constituted business practices that were "unsatisfactory".

These are strong findings of fact; which are condemnatory, even though not amounting to criminality. What conclusion does the inquiry reach from these findings? Not even that Fullerton should be reprimanded or censured.

And Tillman Thomas sees here no inconsistency with accountability and transparency, he restating "fullest confidence" in Fullerton. Really , though , the conclusion entails a sorry mis-step in logic from the findings of fact. Fullerton should at least have been reprimanded . This was called for if there was to be proper adherence to key principles of the scrutiny of politicians, accountability and transparency. In failing at least to reprimand Fullerton, NDC let slip a unique opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to these lofty ideals .

And that all this is happening concurrently with Panday's criminal conviction is even more ironical. But this does not warrant Keith Mitchell concluding that the inquiry into how much money he got from Restainer is no longer relevant. Such conclusion is an emphatic mis-step, it is utter contempt for the Commissioner Dr. Richard Cheltenham QC, a challenge to him all the more to protect the integrity of the statutory inquiry.