The Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

AMIDST mounting controversy over the accuracy of disclosures filed by election candidates last week, both Parliamentary Commissioner Sherlyn Hall and Public Disclosure Commission Chairman Myles Laroda said yesterday they were not responsible for verifying the data put forward by candidates, insisting that responsibility lies with other government agencies.

Mr Hall said his office is only responsible for recording information given and publishing it.

The public discourse surrounding the issue has advanced from initial shock over how much or little candidates declared, to questions over the accuracy of respective declarations.

Political newcomer Bishop James Darling, of the Bahamas Constitution Party, listed his net worth as $48m. Bishop Darling, whose occupation was given as a “minister of religion”, listed the bulk of this figure as $40m from securities.

At a press conference yesterday, Bishop Darling claimed his wealth was from an “antique” inherited from his parents.

Meanwhile, incumbent Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell did not declare an overall net worth on his form, but a figure can be deduced from the assets and liabilities he declared.

This was also the case for other candidates, including Orien Thomas Knowles, the Bahamas National Coalition Party’s candidate for Carmichael, and Karen Davis, the Democratic National Alliance’s candidate for Free Town.

Also, several declaration forms submitted last week bore variations in the spelling of candidates’ names.

Contacted by The Tribune yesterday for clarification on whether his office analysed details of declaration forms submitted on nomination day prior to the forms being published, Mr Hall vehemently denied that his department was mandated by law to verify and check the information provided by candidates.

Mr Hall, who has been under fire for his handling of the registration process for the May 10 general election, contended that it has been “common practice” for his office to “record” and “publish” what it receives from candidates.

“We simply record what is given and publish it,” said Mr Hall.

“We are not responsible for the verification of the information given. We simply receive what is given and publish it. As to the accuracy on any queries that arise, you would have to check with the Attorney General on that.”

Allyson Maynard-Gibson did not respond to requests for comment up to press time.

Mr Hall referred The Tribune to the Parliamentary Elections Act, noting that the law specifies preliminary and general procedures for elections; registration of voters; electoral broadcast guidelines; writs of elections; nominations and several other pertinent procedures associated with an election.

With respect to nominations, the law specifies that all nominated candidates must declare, to the best of their knowledge, estimation of the assets, income and liabilities of themselves, their spouse and children.

The Public Disclosure Commission is also mandated by law to “examine” declarations submitted by respective members of Parliament and senators.

The Public Disclosure Act specifies that in addition to examining disclosures made, the commission can, if need be, request additional information to best clarify information it has obtained.

However, Mr Laroda said the language laid out in the act speaks directly to annual declarations made by parliamentarians and senators. The attorney explained that the law covering the commission does not pertain to those vying for public office during election cycles.

Of disclosures submitted on nomination day, Mr Laroda insisted that the forms associated with those declarations are sent to the Parliamentary Registration Department.

“Those forms come directly from there and go back there, we have no purview over them,” Mr Laroda said.

“We handle year-to-year disclosures. If an MP or a senator declares in their annual disclosure that they have $5,000 in their First Caribbean bank account, it is our job to chase that down and verify that.

“We work to ensure that those annual disclosures are in and legitimate. If we don’t get reports on time, we write the Official Opposition leader and/or the Prime Minister to bring it to their attention that their members are not current.

“That is what we do. That is where it starts and where it finishes. Anything beyond that will have to be taken up with the Parliamentary Department or some other agency, but not here,” he added.

However, the public has not been able to view annual public disclosures by parliamentarians during the course of the five-year Christie administration as none have been gazetted.

On Monday, former Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette called to question the accuracy of disclosures filed by other veteran politicians after a Tribune report identified him as the wealthiest candidate vying for office this year.

Singling out Prime Minister Perry Christie and Minister of Labour Shane Gibson, but also speaking generally, Mr Symonette noted that the intention of public disclosures was to prevent a gross increase in wealth while in office.

He also suggested at the time that there would be greater public confidence in the Public Disclosure Commission if its chair was not a political appointee.

Mr Symonette, the Free National Movement’s candidate for St Anne’s, reported a net worth of $156.4 million - nearly $100 million more from his 2011 disclosure of just over $65 million.

Mr Christie’s net worth has hovered around $2m for three election disclosure periods.