The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Governance reformers yesterday warned it will be a mistake for the Government to abandon the proposed Integrity Commission Bill and the “proactive” anti-corruption measures it contains.

Matt Aubry, the Organisation for Responsible Governance’s (ORG) executive director, told Tribune Business that the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill and Public Disclosures Bill that were debated in the House of Assembly will not be enough by themselves to make a sustained dent in the level of graft and corruption The Bahamas must combat.

Describing both pieces of legislation as “reactive”, meaning their powers are only activated once an alleged incident of corruption happens, he argued that the Integrity Commission and its accompanying legislation is still essential because it contains preventative measures - such as public education and awareness - that are critical to “changing the culture”.

Mr Aubry, asserting that the Integrity Commission needs to accompany and “be aligned” with both the Independent Commission of Investigations and Public Disclosures legislation, told this newspaper: “The Prime Minister said in his assessment during the debate that these eliminated the need for the Integrity Commission, as his government looked at it and established these are what are necessary to satisfy that.

“So there is no need for an Integrity Commission. I think the intent of the Integrity Commission is broader than just both those components. While the Public Disclosures Bill plays a role, and the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill plays a role, they only address things when they happen.

“Currently, what those don’t contain, which the Integrity Commission Bill does, are proactive anti-corruption measures, the public awareness and education, which is essential in changing the culture and fighting corruption concerns with systemic institutions.”

The Integrity Commission, as proposed by the original 2017 legislation that was never debated by Parliament, was intended to promote ethical conduct and combat corruption among public officials. The Commission, would be responsible for investigating, preventing and prosecuting acts of corruption.

Its functions would encompass promoting ethical standards, overseeing public officials’ financial disclosures, and educating the public on anti-corruption measures. It would be empowered to summon and examine witnesses, require the production of documents, and conduct inquiries into alleged corruption.

Mr Aubry, pointing out that the Integrity Commission Bill includes provisions not contained in the other legislation that was debated on Wednesday, added: “The reactive and the proactive are needed to work consistently together so we look at systemic reforms and institutional safeguards that create a system people believe in, then see these types of economic benefit come from it - greater compliance and public trust.

“The Integrity Commission still needs to be aligned with this legislation for us to really leverage and benefit from provisions that are in place.” Asserting that this effort is also bound up with the Freedom of Information Act, Public Procurement Act and Ombudsman Act, Mr Aubry added: “All of these things are critical to us realising the benefit of the things put in place.

“Whereas if they don’t work together, we don’t see that. These are all pieces of the puzzle, but there is still more that can be done.” ORG, in a statement last night, reiterated the concerns voiced by Mr Aubry over the Government’s decision to abandon the Integrity Commission and replace it with the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill and Public Disclosures Bill.

“A strong anti-corruption framework requires both reactive and proactive measures. While investigative oversight is critical to ensuring accountability, the absence of key preventive mechanisms from the 2017 Bill raises concerns about the effectiveness of this new approach,” ORG said.

“Notably, the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill 2025 does not appear to include providing public education and awareness on integrity and anti-corruption practices; conducting systemic corruption risk assessments across government institutions; monitoring and evaluating anti-corruption policies to ensure effectiveness.”

Other areas that ORG identified as not being addressed included the implementation of “a structured process for financial disclosures and conflict of interest management for public officials”, plus “establishing a code of ethics for public officials to strengthen integrity in governance”.

“Corruption prevention is just as vital as investigation,”it added. “Without a robust framework that educates, monitors and reinforces institutional safeguards, corruption risks will persist, eroding public trust and weakening governance.

“ORG continues to champion a comprehensive, coordinated anti-corruption strategy - one that aligns government, private sector and civil society efforts to maximise impact and build public confidence. A well-rounded integrity framework strengthens transparency, accountability and economic stability, fostering an environment that attracts investment, enhances public service efficiency and upholds democratic values.”

The original Integrity Commission Bill defined various acts of corruption, including bribery, fraud and illicit enrichment. It criminalised the acceptance or offering of undue advantages by public officials and established penalties for such offences.

Public officials were mandated to file annual declarations of their financial affairs, including assets, liabilities and income. The Commission would be tasked with verifying these disclosures and can investigate discrepancies or unexplained wealth.

The Bill also included provisions to protect persons who report corruption, ensuring their confidentiality and safeguarding them from retaliation. Penalties for corruption-related offences ranged from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the act. The Bill also allowed for the confiscation of assets obtained through corrupt practices.