A Guy’s View: Legislating morality
“If you don't have integrity, you have nothing. You can't buy it. You can have all the money in the world, but if you are not a moral and ethical person, you really have nothing.” Henry Kravis.
Corruption has been the buzz word in Barbados ever since the run up to the last elections in May this year. It has hardly abated since. This has been skilfully kept alive by those who think that they stand to benefit from this ongoing discussion.
Somebody wrote that there is nothing new under the sun. What is, was and will be. This is true of corruption in its various forms. The most elaborate legal infrastructure in the most developed countries of the world has not been able to stop it.
The following syllogism is not true: all bribery is corruption, all persons who control the public purse are corrupt, the corrupt practices of all who control the public purse is bribery. While it is true that all bribery is corruption, not all corruption is bribery. In the recent discourse in this country, some persons have been careful to identify what they want to define as corruption so that it would stay clear of their own corrupt practices.
Corruption is nothing new, but its antiquity does not make it right. The fact that it is as old as man’s appearance in the Garden of Eden, though, tells us that legislation will not rid us of it. The best cure for corruption is integrity, and that can neither be taught nor legislated.
I was once part of a group of young people from among whom an object went missing. After searching for a few days, the persons in charge of us brought the entire group together and delivered a speech which was half an appeal to our better selves and half a threat of consequences if we did not do the right thing and return the missing object.
One among us stood without invitation and portended to speak for all of us. He declared that we were all supposed to be people of integrity and if it were to be found out that one of us had indeed taken the missing object, the most severe consequences should be visited upon that person. Two days later this most outspoken defender of all that was good and true was on a plane out of Barbados because he was in fact the man who had stolen the object. From that time of my tender years till now, I place no stock in those who shout loudest on any subject. It is wise to keep a keen eye on loud mouths. Shakespeare gave us a guide; “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
Without even a passing reference to the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap. 144 or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2012, we have been introduced to the Integrity in Public Life Bill, 2018. The haste to be rid of all things pre-May 2018 has been one of the major downfalls of this 2018 Bill. No doubt, however, the drafters gave their instructors what they wanted.
There is no masking the fact that corruption was not high on any person’s agenda for many years in Barbados. The only existing Act which expressly stated that it was developed to address corrupt practices was passed by our Parliament in 1929. It was not even revisited for the mere purpose of updating the fines contained in it.
The 2012 Act was passed but never came into force. Had it been effectuated as it was passed it may have led to other challenges, but these were not insurmountable. Corrections may have been made and the law implemented. But more important considerations took precedence.
Our history on this issue notwithstanding, flying a Bill that cannot give any true picture of how it intends to remedy whatever mischief conceived it does not help our cause, other than to keep the subject alive in our collective consciousness.
The version of the Integrity in Public Life Bill that is in circulation is not accompanied by any rules or regulations. So, for example, a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate is prohibited from acquiring an interest in a contract with the Government. The rules of prohibition are made pursuant to section 84(2) of the Bill. But what does section 84(2) say? It says that the Commission set up under the Bill shall make rules outlining the circumstances in which the acquisition by a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate of an interest in a contract with the Government is prohibited.
In the absence of such rules, there really can be no sensible discussion on this subject. Parading well-meaning people and organisations before a select committee adds nothing to the emptiness of the Bill.
Are we to seriously believe that members of Parliament will pass legislation to make themselves subject to witch hunts where persons, without a shred of evidence, can make a complaint against them to an investigative Commission that can also try and convict them? And that they are willing to allow their prosecution without any application of the protective rules of evidence that have been legislated to ensure fairness in judicial matters? This immediately raises the question of the constitutionality of section 10(3) of the Bill which expressly excludes the application of the rules of evidence from a hearing. This would surely deny a person a fair trial, a right to which every subject is entitled.
All it takes to commence a hunt is for any person to claim that he heard an allegation in public and make a complaint to the Commission, according to section 64 of the Bill. There is no need for the production of some minimum threshold of evidence by the complainer. There is no guidance on any special interest that might create some platform for locus standi. All it takes is a visit to a rum shop, a lawless conversation, a complaint, and the Commission is off.
The Bill is silent on the use of political parties to facilitate bribery. You make a big song and dance about restricting individuals from accepting bribes, but do nothing to prevent the collective, the party under whose umbrella they achieve office, from removing the blame from the individuals by taking the money for them.
When it is convenient we say that there are no parties in Parliament, only individuals. But how many individuals ascend those steps who won their seats as individuals without a party? There is no member of our Parliament who can leave the Barbados Labour Party and win a seat as an independent candidate. We are making sport, therefore, when we develop anti-corruption legislation aimed at politicians without addressing their political party.
The greatest step that may be taken in preventing corruption at the political level is for the Government to fund the election campaigns of every party that has been able to garner at least ten percent of the vote and do away with the practice of private individuals funding campaigns. If people fund your campaign, chances are they will expect that if you win their interests will be looked after. This quid pro quo is almost inevitable. End this practice and then you may appear to be serious about making our system of governance transparent.