For years the Integrity Commission has been marred in controversy. In 2009, chairman John Martin and all of the commissioners resigned in the wake of a damning High Court judgment which found the body had acted in bad faith and was guilty of misfeasance when they referred a report which led to a criminal investigation of Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley’s role in the Landate affair.
Shortly after, Gordon Deane, who replaced Martin, also stepped down after the commission referred the Landate matter involving Dr Keith Rowley to the DPP. Deane recused himself in this matter.
The cloud of controversy continued in May 2009 when within hours of its formation retired Justice of Appeal Zainool Hosein, who had been promised the post of deputy chairman, but which instead was given to Jeffrey McFarlane, resigned. One week later, its chairman Roman Catholic cleric Fr Henry Charles (now deceased) discovered he could not serve on the commission, according to canon law and was forced to quit.
In 2011, Dr Eric St Cyr relinquished his position as chairman after Udecott chairman Jearlean John called on him to resign and threatened legal action after he incorrectly and prematurely told a reporter that the commission had started an investigation on John. Now, the commission’s current chairman Ken Gordon has found himself in a brouhaha for having a secret meeting with Rowley last month.
Gordon has maintained that he has done nothing wrong and will not step down. In this interview with SHALIZA HASSANALI, Gladys Gafoor, who was suspended by former president Maxwell Richards as deputy chairman of the commission under Gordon’s tenure, has finally broken her silence on her thoughts on the Gordon/Rowley meeting and what led to her suspension, which she challenged in the court but lost.
Q: What led to your suspension?
A: It was based on my refusal to recuse myself from participating in the matter regarding John Jeremy who was being investigated by the commission. Someone whose name I am not at liberty to reveal had written the commission asking that Mr Jeremy be investigated for something he had done ultra vires his duties, while he was attorney general. The complaint had been before the commission for 22 months, which would have been approximately 21 months prior to Mr Gordon’s appointment as chairman.
No complaint had been made during those 21 months. But approximately one month subsequent to Mr Gordon’s appointment, a letter was received complaining that I should not participate in the investigation, but stating no reasons that would necessitate my recusal. The commission had decided prior to Mr Gordon’s tenure that the matter be investigated by a private investigator and not be done by the commission itself. This was not an unusual procedure.
What was your role in this process?
The commission does not embark on a role until the report by the private investigator is submitted. Hence, I would not have had a role until the report was received.
When were you suspended and how?
I was suspended in February 2012. I heard of my suspension by former president His Excellency George Maxwell Richards. I heard this on the news. Until that time, I had no knowledge of my suspension. Later in the afternoon a courier came to my house and served me the suspension letter.
Were you shocked?
I was very shocked because Mr Richards said that he would call me after my response to the gist of the letters he had received. He never showed me the actual letters although I requested them. He said he would call me and he never did. Mr Richards in my view acted unfairly towards me and humiliated me in a manner I did not deserve.
I became very disturbed. I felt I had done nothing wrong. I was not given a full opportunity to be heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice...I understood subsequently that secret meetings had taken place between the chairman and Mr Richards of which I was not told.
You have appealed two court matters against the commission, what has happened to those?
In the first place, I took a strong stand in the matter of my recusal because I did feel, and still do, that Mr Gordon did not have the authority to recuse me, nor did the other members none of whom was qualified legally or otherwise to deal with my recusal. My matters from the High Court have been appealed after the judge in his wisdom determined both matters against me.
I have, however, given instructions to my attorneys to discontinue my matters. That decision was taken earlier this year. I did not feel there was any point in pursuing the matters...not that I would lose, I felt that it was causing me too much stress and trauma. My lawyers, however, felt otherwise. I did not agree with the ruling in both matters hence the reason for the appeal.
By backing down, wouldn’t Mr Gordon feel vindicated and consider you a weakling?
Mr Gordon’s feelings are irrelevant to me. I am not concerned with what Mr Gordon thinks of me. I am concerned with what God thinks of me. I know I am a person of impeccable integrity. My integrity cannot be challenged. I am sure of that. No one can come forward and say that I am not a person of integrity. I dare anyone to come forward and attack my integrity successfully.
Do you think Mr Gordon owes you an apology?
Yes, I do. But Mr Gordon is not the kind of person who apologises. He always dismissed my concerns in a most cavalier manner... in a way which suggested that he thought he was the emperor and I his subject.
What was your working relationship with Mr Gordon?
Perfect until November 29. A month after the relationship began to deteriorate as a result of Mr Jeremy’s letter to Gordon requesting that I not participate in the investigation. I protested. Nobody can recuse me. I am the one to recuse myself.
Did your defiance anger anyone?
Yes. It angered Mr Gordon. He continuously kept telling me he did not want me there and started to call meetings before the scheduled time, so I would not be present. He mistreated me several times at the commission.
Did you hold any animosity against Mr Gordon?
I have no animosity towards Mr Gordon. I never stopped speaking to him. I am not that kind of person. I have very high values.
Did the commission show bitterness towards you?
They did. But I didn’t. I still don’t hold any animosity towards any of them.
What are your views about the secret meeting with Dr Rowley and Mr Gordon?
I am not surprised about this expose involving the secret meeting with Mr Gordon and Mr Rowley. Part of the problem I experienced with Mr Gordon stemmed from his apparent bias and his refusal to accept my advice which I gave in good faith in the interest of the commission at all times. I am against Mr Gordon’s modus operandi, the way he conducted meetings. I am of the view that relative to that meeting it was injudicious to hold it where he did.
The commission issued a release on June 5, stating that they had obtained a legal opinion which advised that they have the power to investigate the e-mail allegations raised by Rowley, but could only do so until commissioners were appointed. What are you thoughts?
The release was mind-boggling to me. Mr Gordon purports to speak on behalf of the commission at a time when it is non-existent. This is consistent with his emperor-like modus operandi, as he views the commission as if it were his personal kingdom. It is my view that his attitude at all times was chauvinistic and narrow-minded. I am not blaming Mr Rowley. Anyone can seek a meeting with a person, but Mr Gordon’s position is a quasi-judicial one.
Some radio callers have expressed the view that in similar circumstances the honourable Prime Minister has also held meetings at her home. The Prime Minister is not in a quasi-judicial officer and therfore is entitled to hold meetings with her Cabinet ministers wherever and whenever she pleases. This is my view. Therefore, he should have taken the necessary steps to see that he held the meeting at his office. An uncorroborated aide-memoire can state anything.
Mr Gordon said he did nothing wrong, improper and had not breached protocol. Why did he have to commit anything in writing? Why did he have to defend himself? Now that the matter is before the commission Mr Gordon has to recuse himself because of his interference. It is not for Mr Rowley to take full responsibility, it is Mr Gordon.
The complaint is pending before the commission and an investigation has got to be carried out and the visit concerned that matter. So by seeking advice, the chairman ought to have been concerned about being involved in a controversial political matter. He may not have broken laws that would entail court charges, but in my view his behaviour was in breach of a moral law.
Why did you remain silent for so long?
Because I had matters pending in the court and it would have been inappropriate for me to give my views which might have been likely to prejudice my cases. In other words the matters were subjudice.
Do you think Mr Gordon has integrity?
You are asking me to judge him. It is only God who can judge us. I feel he acted unethically, knowing the sensitive issue engaging the country.
Should Mr Gordon resign?
I think he should seriously consider that as an option, as he should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, which is the motto of the integrity commission.
Now that Mr Gordon has refused to budge, how do you view this?
Of course I have not seen or heard it, but you are telling me he has said so and has said that he’s acting under Section 5 within the ambit of Integrity in Public Life Act. If what you say is correct then he is misinterpreting the section. That section is concerned with investigations before the commission and in any event Mr Gordon is not empowered to act alone under that section.
So is Mr Gordon a law unto himself?
It would appear that he is misinterpreting the section which he says gives him the power to do as he pleases. That cannot be so. Mr Gordon alone has absolutely no power under the Act, but can only act when a decision is taken by the entire commission.
Is Mr Gordon unfit for the chair?
I am of the view that Mr Gordon is the worst chairman under whom I have worked because (he has) never exhibited, in my humble view, the ethics required of a chairman in a quasi-judicial position.
Why has the commission been involved in so much controversy?
I think it has been embroiled in controversy because the chairman ought to be at least legally trained so as to properly guide himself. The former president made a lot of errors because he was not legally trained.
Do you think the commission will regain its integrity?
The commission will always be viewed with suspicion by members of the public because of the controversies that have surrounded it.
How do you think the Rowley/Gordon matter will end?
That will be a matter for the President.
If Mr Gordon steps down and you are offered any position on the commission will you accept?
I shall always be willing to give service to my country when required to do so. I enjoyed the work of the commission. I thought it was a good challenge until Mr Gordon’s relationship with me deteriorated.
As a former judge, did you wield too much power as deputy chair?
I never aspired to take over his position. I chaired the commission between Dr St Cyr’s resignation and the assumption of Mr Gordon’s appointment for several meetings.
Do you think Mr Gordon felt threatened by your presence?
Mr Gordon feels threatened by anyone who does not agree with him. He cannot accept the opinion of anyone who disagrees with him. That was my experience with him and that is my perception.
In your times of stress, who did you turn to for help and advice?
I always turn to the Lord to guide and protect me at all times. I hold very high values and practise those values.
Were your legal fees a tidy sum?
Yes, they are very high because a lot of work had to be done in both matters by my attorneys.
Did you have sleepless nights?
Many. I actually became a nervous wreck because I was accused of something of which I am unaware up to this time. In so far as I am concerned, I did nothing wrong. I merely refused to recused myself without a proper basis for me to do so.
Mrs Gafoor, after months of pleading with you unsuccessfully for an interview, I must thank you for accepting my request.
You will appreciate that I was not in a position to speak until the appropriate time to do so, which is now.
Gafoor served as:
• Senior magistrate
• Deputy Solicitor general
• DPP
•Vice president of Industrial Court
•Senior lecturer and course director at Hugh Wooding Law School