The Tribune

IN VIEW of the PLP's past record and the public's criticisms of its various scandals over the years, Archbishop Drexel Gomez urged the Christie administration to quickly establish a Code of Ethics to which the new government would strictly adhere.

Those of us who have been around from the party's beginning can honestly say that we have heard this old song before. Like parrots the code was mouthed, but never practised. However, now that the retired archbishop has a brother and son in the Christie cabinet, he might be in a better position to keep a watching brief on the new administration's morals and ethics. We shall, therefore, depend upon him to keep them all honest.

On Thursday, May 9, 2002, in announcing the appointment of the last members of his first cabinet, Prime Minister Christie said in a national address that his ministers would "formally adopt the strictest code of ethics in the political life of the country."

In August of that year -- 2002- he tabled in the House a Code of Ethics for government ministers, stating that he would soon introduce legislation relating to the integrity of public life.

Mr Christie said that ministerial service was to be considered a full-time calling. Under the Code of Ethics Ministers would be required to discontinue all private work on assumption of office. Also they had to resign from any other public office or as director and/or officer of any public or private companies or associations. Contractual relationships with government must be terminated, with interest in any company holding such contractual relationships divested or, as appropriate, placed in a blind trust.

Ministers, he said, will be considered to have "flagrantly breached" the Code of Ethics if insider information is used to make speculative investments or obtain any advantage from such and, in general, are required to avoid any form of "ethically improper behaviour."

Describing the code as "absolutely essential to ministerial service with integrity," Prime Minister Christie said that if public confidence in the integrity of the political directorate of the Bahamas is to become a hallmark of the political culture, it is of the first importance that the Prime Minister and other Ministers of Government observe the highest standards of probity in public life.

According to the newspaper report the introduction of the Christie government's Code of Ethics was in keeping with the PLP's campaign pledge in 2002.

As we all know this Code was no sooner adopted than it fell by the wayside. For the next five years scandal followed scandal in the new administration, until after its first term the Christie government was voted out of office and an investigative report to discover the cause of its defeat concluded that "the party lost in part because of perceptions that the government was scandal-ridden."

It needs, said the Greenberg Quinland Rosner report, "to take concrete actions that convey its seriousness about purging corruption from the party and state."

We believe that already within the new cabinet there are persons who will have to get their personal house in order before they can serve under this Code.

From his words on Sunday, the archbishop seems unaware that the PLP administration had a Code of Ethics that was observed only in its breach. "As a matter of priority," the archbishop urged, "present the Bahamian people with a code of ethics governing the conduct of the persons who are responsible for the management of the affairs of the country."

"I believe," he continued, "that given the history of this particular party, given the noise of the naysayers who are watching, and even criticising before you begin to act, it would do you well to show the Bahamas and to show the outside world that we do have standards, and we do have dignity, we do know how to conduct our affairs."

The archbishop knows whereof he speaks. After all he is the one who, sitting as commissioner on the 1984 Commission of Inquiry into drug peddling, was courageous enough to put in a minority report in which he found it "impossible" to say that payments to then prime minister Sir Lynden Pindling were "all non-drug related. Some could have been but, however, that may be, it certainly cannot be contested that the Prime Minister did not exercise sufficient care to preclude the possibility of drug-related funds reaching his bank account or being applied for his benefit. In the absence of inquiry he could have unwittingly received drug related funds."

We hope that for the next five years the archbishop will be the Enforcer at the cabinet door, while the press will keep them honest by the aggressive use of the Freedom of Information Act.