The Tribune

By KHRISNA RUSSELL

Tribune Chief Reporter

krussell@tribunemedia.net

THE Organisation for Responsible Governance has said former Cabinet Minister Shane Gibson’s $2.5m settlement with the government over his malicious prosecution lawsuit underscores the need for the establishment of an Integrity Commission.

Matt Aubry, ORG’s executive director, told The Tribune yesterday that such a commission would be able to objectively look at claims of corruption, vet them and dismiss them if they have no merit. He said if a need to prosecute is found by an Integrity Commission, it can be done in an “above board way” without appearing to be politically motivated.

He spoke to this newspaper the day after it was confirmed that Mr Gibson reached a $2.5m settlement with the government after making claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment following his acquittal in a bribery trial in 2019.

After his acquittal, the former Cabinet minister’s lawyers argued his case was tainted with “wickedness” and “injustice” from the start. They pointed to the Minnis administration’s 2017 campaign promise to jail corrupt government officials and to the actions of a senior police investigator who met key witnesses to align their stories.

Mr Aubry was asked to respond to some who believe the size of the settlement creates bad optics for the Davis administration. Mr Gibson is a former Progressive Liberal Party Cabinet minister.

Mr Aubry said in cases where public officials face allegations of misconduct an independent body should be set up to investigate, which could help restore public trust, so that cases do not appear to be politically motivated.

“The other opportunity that we think has real benefit to consider is the Integrity Commission as was outlined in the last legislative session where you have an independent body that can vet these things (allegations of corruption) as they come forward and view them and determine and make all the necessary determinations in an apolitical space.

“Not to say that this may not happen politically or apolitically, it’s hard to tell, the optics presented though as if it’s a political back and forth and fundamentally we need to restore the public’s trust that there is a process in place where if claims are brought forward they are going to be looked at objectively, vetted extensively, and if found to have no merit they are dismissed and publicly determined to have been done so and if there is a need to prosecute done so again in a very above board way,” Mr Aubry said.

Speaking generally, Mr Aubry said The Bahamas must consider other types of legislation and models that can be put in place to address corruption.

“It’s been talked about by the attorney general and the minister of state for economic affairs that there is consideration for expansion or amendments of the Public Disclosures Act and I think there is opportunity in there to strengthen it, but I think, however, the amendment goes or traditional legislation is to be looked at having a comprehensive commission that independently that looks at these issues and also identifies other areas where potentially conflict of interest or issues of corruption could be present and starts to push forward. I think it can help us in many instances.

“I think it will validate some of the things and investments that have been made to minimise the incidents of corruption but also will identify proactively any other areas where there could be trouble that needs to be looked at, advanced and mitigated before it becomes something that leads to this kind of an outcome, which doesn’t present well for anybody and is clearly a big cost to the public funds,” Mr Aubry said.

It took jurors less than two hours to acquit Mr Gibson of 13 bribery charges. He was accused of soliciting and accepting more than $200,000 in bribes from Jonathan Ash for expediting payments the contractor was owed for work done after Hurricane Matthew in 2016.

The Prevention of Bribery Act states that when a person is acquitted after trial in the Supreme Court for an offence under Part II, “the court may award costs to that person, such costs to be taxed and paid out of the consolidated fund”.