The Tribune

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

MUCH like in previous years, we see widespread lawbreaking by lawmakers who have yet again failed to abide by the law that mandates that they file annual financial declarations.

For far too long, the Public Disclosures Act has not been complied with and, what’s more, the Public Disclosures Commission (PDC) is a neutered watch-poodle that exercises no real power against lawless legislators, some of whom pretend to represent their constituents’ interests whilst expecting to live above the law, telling them by action that some Bahamians (meaning them) –- in true Orwellian fashion – are “more equal than others”.

Frankly, the Public Disclosures Act (PDA) is a surrogate marker for honesty where little to no honesty exists. The truth is, even civil society and we in the media are raising hell about relative worthlessness - the most worthless being the people who do not disclose.

In 2014, we saw the same story play out. At that time, Prime Minister Perry Christie told the House of Assembly that the PDC had reported that “a number” of present and former parliamentarians and senators, along with senior public officers, have failed to submit declarations as mandated in the Act. However, much as he did this week, at that time he did not confirm whether he was compliant with the law though he urged Members of Parliament to prioritise submissions during his closing budget contribution in the House of Assembly. The stench of hypocrisy prevails today.

At that time, Mr Christie stated that the government might have given future consideration to how the matter of public disclosures is handled in Britain and adopt some of those measures in a bid to reduce unnecessary public embarrassment for local politicians. Mr Christie said: “I just want to be able to say that this is a requirement, that I will be causing those persons who have not yet disclosed to know that it is expected and to make every effort to submit their disclosures to the Disclosure Commission. It is an important requirement.

“A few years ago, the clerk of the House pointed out to me the disclosure provisions of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and it is worthy for us at some stage or the other to see in fact how they go about with their public disclosures, so as to minimise the extent to which there could be public embarrassment unnecessarily by provision in the law.”

That was in 2014. We saw a replay of the aforesaid failures to disclose in 2015. And so, here we are today.

Members of Parliament and senators are required by law to turn in their financial disclosures to the PDC by March each year covering their assets and liabilities for the previous year. A summary of the declarations should be published in the Gazette, the Public Disclosures Act says.

The Act states that any person who does not comply with the law is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years.

According to the law, if a parliamentarian deliberately does not disclose property owned in The Bahamas, the land can be seized and forfeited to the government. However, in spite of the law, the disclosures are rarely made public aside from an election year when each candidate must provide the information in order to run for office.

Bahamians would perhaps recall that the last time all people seeking to run for Parliament or sitting in the Parliament disclosed was in April 2012, weeks before the May 7 general election. At that time, we saw a detailed outlay of the finances of the 133 candidates who vied for seats. There were 56 millionaires on that list.

Today, there is little to no observation of the Public Disclosure Act (PDA). I think having an Act that no one adheres to is foolish. It is no more than a circle jerk.

If one was to scrutinise the disclosures of Parliamentarians, how many of them are fabricated? Disclosure is intended to be a monitoring tool for corruption. But, it is not.

We need to acknowledge the failings of the PDA, which came about in 1977. Whilst one can appreciate the spirit of the Act - which was meant to allow the public some degree of transparency to determine if their MP is engaged in corrupt practises - the truth of the matter is that that doesn’t happen.

Frankly, several politicians have told me that disclosure makes them an open target for some members of the public to harass for money and/or could make them the subject of derision if they are not worth more than $50,000.

That said, there is no verification of what is in the disclosures that are being made. One must simply accept what is written. There is no serious watchdog. There is no forensic auditing. The verification process would be the teeth of disclosure.

How many persons have been penalised since the enactment of the PDA in 1977? It is simply a joke. All MPs do is put something down on a piece of paper and the public and the press is then satisfied.

Nobody is jailed or fined if they do not disclose. Who will fine Mr Christie and other MPs and senators who haven’t disclosed or claim that their disclosures are in the mail or some other lame excuse?

The only way to change the state of affairs is via a leadership team that is committed to the spirit and intent of disclosures, a team that understands the pros and the cons of disclosure and non-disclosure. As it stands, disclosures merely serve as the cause of speculative conversations over coffee or at the water cooler.

Why are there no random audits of the disclosures of public officials? Do we really want to know the truth or are we more concerned about who took the time to write some fanciful, unsubstantiated numbers on a piece of paper?

Our politicians approach to the PDA is not much different from their approach to campaign financing, particularly that which speaks to bribery and buying elections. There are many Bahamians who can attest to receiving bribes and money for votes each election cycle. In fact, many Bahamians look forward to general elections. It is perceived that if the bribes and vote buying is done in a slick and discreet way, it’s just all right. Inducements and money to gain votes is the order of the day in local politics and most Bahamians know it.

We need to wake up and understand that the PDA is useless in improving our access to information, that it confers no transparency nor does it confirm the integrity of any elected or public official.

The PDA speaks to an expectation of the Bahamian people that suggests that yet again, we are being abused by politicians who can impress some by submitting a document that is not subject to critical, audited scrutiny. How can we be satisfied with that, how little have we come to expect?

So, either we get rid of the PDA altogether or put teeth into it. The current half-baked approach makes for nonsensical, alcohol-laced conversations only and nothing more. I can hear folks gossiping now about who is a millionaire and who is not.

If we are outraged, let’s acknowledge that the basis for the damning Auditor General’s report on social services is demonstrative of the level of corruption in The Bahamas. The people that suffer most are the most vulnerable. We see corruption at the Post Office, Road Traffic, the Police Force, BAMSI and other areas and sources of shrinkage or leakage of Bahamian taxpayers’ money. There is no question that it is real.

Our leaders, at some point, will have to stop this charade about the PDA and deal with these issues in a way that actually staunches the bleeding.

If I pick any MP or senator right now and subject them to an independent audit, how many would change their disclosure? In many instances, it is highly likely that there is a material difference between reality and what they disclose. After all, elected and public officials are supposed to obtain audited bank statements and up-to-date assessments of their real property. We know that the only way to get a true value for real property is to have it appraised. Where are the appraisals? I have a feeling that many of them pull random numbers out of thin air and write those down, leaving out that whatever they so please.

How is the PDC to examine the declarations and properly opine as to whether they are reasonable and accurate renderings with appraisals and audited bank statements? I personally don’t believe that many disclosures are either accurate, honest or helpful in changing or highlighting the fiscal integrity of Bahamian politicians.

When the PDA was passed, no doubt it was well intended. After all, the old adage is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Just a few short years after the passage of the PDA in 1977, the 1984 Commission of Inquiry revealed that elected and public officials were engaging in untold corruption. The minority report of Archbishop Drexel Gomez raised serious concerns about former Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling’s finances and how he acquired certain monies deposited in his bank account. And, yet there were other disgraced individuals who were named or caught up in questionable activities that involved large amounts of money, particularly the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers. Yet, none of them suffered any serious reprimand or penalties as a result of this PDA. So, what good has it been?

Currently, we have MPs who are alleged to be exposed and defaulting on loans to the Bank of the Bahamas. As such, if the disclosure process was accurate, some of them would be deemed bankrupt. Yet, they continue to serve. So, what’s the point of the PDA?

Many elected and public officials have revenues they have not disclosed. Yet, we nod our head, wink and look in the other direction. We are satisfied to know that they have filled out a piece of paper.

Please!

Our interest has to be more than merely questioning if an MP or public official filed a disclosure but rather if they filed an honest disclosure.

Comments and responses to ajbahama@hotmail.com