The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

THE Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG) yesterday expressed concern over the strength and independence of the government’s Integrity Commission Bill 2017, echoing calls from the opposition for broader consultation.

The civic organisation stressed the “single greatest concern” is the level of uncertainty concerning the bill’s nonpartisan, nonpolitical intent - given that it relied on the approval and consent of both the attorney general and the prime minister for various functions.

The group recommended lawmakers remove the positions of prime minister and attorney general from the bill “with the exception of enjoying review privileges”.

ORG Executive Director Matt Aubry said the bill gave the prime minister the power to appoint several members of the commission, inclusive of the chairman, and “most concerningly” depose of members at his discretion.

Mr Aubry noted those provisions were not in line with best practices and would obstruct the independence of the commission.

“Independence of the commission is paramount, otherwise the provision is moot,” he said in a press statement yesterday.

“As is currently written, the commission is much more answerable to the prime minister than we have seen in other legislation, or than we believe is advisable. Currently the committee’s accounts and reports are presented to the PM, when best practice dictates they would be tabled in both Houses (of Parliament).”

Tabled in the House of Assembly in October, the bill would enshrine a new code of conduct for public officials, establish a commission to investigate alleged corruption and deepen the financial disclosure responsibilities of public officials.

The proposed Integrity Commission would consist of seven commissioners: a justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal appointed by the prime minister after consultation with the leader of the opposition; a chartered or certified accountant of at least seven years standing, appointed by the governor general after consultation with the Bahamas Institute of Chartered Accountants; a person who is a counsel and attorney-at-law of ten or more years, appointed by the governor general after consultation with the Bahamas Bar Association; a member of the clergy appointed by the prime minister after consultation with the Bahamas Christian Council; two people appointed by the prime minister on the recommendation of members of civil society; and a person appointed by the prime minister after consultation with the leader of the opposition. The commissioners will be appointed for three years and eligible for one further three-year re-appointment.

While ORG backed calls by Official Opposition Leader Philip Davis for broader consultation and greater clarity, it said it did not find the bill to be overly intrusive.

“Greater clarity is perhaps needed on the levels of breach of code of conduct,” Mr Aubry said.

“It is clear that certain offences including coercion, extortion, kickbacks in awarding of contracts, are criminal in nature and grounds for investigation and prosecution. Lesser offences that fall under breaches of the code of conduct are harder to monitor and the systems for establishing and punishing those breaches are vague.

“Such offences may include operating a government car for non-government business or using a public computer to send private emails. These matters must be ironed out to allow an official to conduct his or her duties while limiting opportunity for abuse. Recommendations like this are crucial to the success of the bill and the commission and that is why we feel it is crucial to broaden consultation on this game-changing bill.”

ORG encouraged the public to visit its website to view a copy of the bill, its analysis, and a form to provide feedback at www.orgbahamas.com/anticorruption.