This is the full text of the statement issued yesterday by chairman of the Integrity Commission Kenneth Gordon:
I have deferred responding, for perhaps too long, to the questions, misrepresentations and in some cases deliberate distortions which have been carried in the media about my meeting on May 15 with Dr Rowley. Now I do so collectively. The questions have been framed to avoid duplication and are dealt with in a question and answer format.
The commission does not in the normal way make public statements to explain its position on issues which are before it or on which it has been forced to act. We have done so in this instance because of the significance of the particular matter.
You have been reported in the Newsday as saying “I have the power of the Integrity Commission.” Is that correct?
No, most certainly not. I never made any such statement. That headline on the front page of the Newsday on June 22 was deliberate mischief for it was carried in inverted commas and repeated on three other occasions in the same edition of the paper. Our request for an apology has been ignored and gone unanswered.
Are there guidelines for the manner in which a sole commissioner with or without a constituted commission should deal with the type of situation with which you were confronted?
The IPLA [Integrity in Public Life Act] guides the conduct of the commission and by extension its commissioners. Clearly every eventuality cannot be anticipated but the dominant guideline is that the commission is not subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority and that it is free to do all such things as it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out its function.
On May 15 we were in uncharted waters. Nonetheless we were required to function on a day-to-day basis and we did so short of taking policy decisions in the absence of a constituted Commission. One had always to be “mindful” of the regulations of the IPLA and whenever indicated act in general accordance with them. I have always sought to do so. We were therefore able to carry on with valuable preparatory work to facilitate the decision-making process once the new commission was appointed.
But many who understand the commission’s independence remain concerned that the venue of the meeting was your home.
I understand that. In the perfect world that meeting ought to have taken place at the Integrity Commission with an officer present. But it is apparent from the terms in which the IPLA’s independence are framed that commissioners are expected to carry out their functions even where the perfect world does not exist.
What is also inherent in the IPLA is the confidence which is reposed in the Integrity of the individual commissioner. If he can be entrusted to honour the Oath of Secrecy he or she can be trusted to faithfully report on what transpired at a brief meeting with a public official. If the commissioner had failed to take immediate steps to ensure transparency, then it could be argued that he had failed the confidence which had been reposed in him.
But this commissioner did not do that. He reported what had transpired in an aide-memoire and the next day handed it to the Registrar sealed to be placed in the vault to await the incoming commission.
Why was the Registrar not invited to the meeting?
The meeting was not anticipated. Arranged at approximately 6 pm, it took place between 6.15 to 6.30 pm. The Registrar lives in the east. It was impractical to have him present in the circumstances which existed.
The charge has been made that the meeting was secret and held to plan a political conspiracy.
A wild and irresponsible charge without an iota of truth. A secret meeting would not have had an aide-memoire immediately prepared of what had transpired and handed to the Registrar the following day. There was nothing secret about the meeting.
Why was there need for an opinion from Senior Counsel? No one had raised any issue of jurisdiction.
That is not correct. The commission staff has a responsibility to prepare documentation based on which commissioners take decisions. There is an established process for dealing with matters before they are presented to the Integrity Commission. This includes seeking legal guidance as necessary. In this instance the commission’s in-house counsel advised on May 23 that the commission had the required jurisdiction.
Because both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General (both of whom are SCs) are on record as stating that the Integrity Commission had no such jurisdiction (see Hansard and newspaper clipping), we therefore decided to obtain an opinion from Senior Counsel on May 27.
The Attorney General has since publicly denied that anyone ever questioned the Integrity Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter. That is demonstrably not true.
Quotations from:
(1) The Express of May 24: “Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said the Commission is not the competent authority for such as investigation. But Rowley is calling for the Integrity Commission to investigate the matter.”
(2) The Guardian of May 24: “The Prime Minister and Attorney General say the IC’s powers do not extend to criminal matters such as those which may arise out of the issues in the e-mails.”
(3) Newsday of May 25: “Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, at the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing, said the Integrity Commission does not have powers under its statute to probe criminal offences such as murder. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar on Wednesday said the Commission, as a creature of statute, is not able to investigate matters beyond its remit.”
Contrary to the Attorney General’s statement that the Integrity Commission had no jurisdiction in this matter, the conflict on this issue could hardly be more clearly spelt out. Attached as an appendix is an extract from Hansard which also quotes Prime Minister Kamla Persad- Bissessar’s position.
It was considered desirable to release the information given in the opinion to clear up the widespread uncertainty, as a matter of public information. You may recall that we also sought permission from another Senior Counsel some months earlier to make sections of his opinion available to the complainant at the time of the matter related to the Prime Minister’s sister Vidwatie Newton. There was no complaint at that time on any front.
This was done in response to a request from public commentators for more information about the basis on which the commission’s decision was made. It was emphasised to Senior Counsel at the time that this was likely to be passed to the media. It was, and was published in the media. In both instances the information released was restricted to the conclusions of the opinion.
This appeared to be a welcome development and it is now part of the practice of the commission to share more information with the public wherever this is consistent with our policy particularly on national issues. Moreover there was a clear onus on the commission’s secretariat to have the issue of jurisdiction cleared up as part of its preparation for the incoming commissioners.
Why did the Integrity Commission publish the summary of Peake’s opinion?
There were strong differences between the Prime Minister, Attorney General and the Opposition about whether or not this matter fell within the jurisdiction of the commission. (See Hansard quote page 140-141. Also quote PM from Hansard statement.) So the issue of jurisdiction became one of national importance. It is part of the remit of the Integrity Commission under its public education programme to address such matters.
Meeting held in the dead of night like Dracula. The meeting commenced at approximately 6.15 pm and ended at approximately 6.30 pm.
Why do you believe you should not tender your resignation?
Part II Section 5 (2)(a) and (c) [of the act] make it clear that the Integrity Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any other persons or authority and that it has the power to do what it considers necessary or expedient. It must also be understood that whether or not a “constituted” commission had existed on May 15, the day of the meeting, the identical circumstances could have occurred.
My response would almost certainly have been the same except that I might have immediately called one or other of the commissioners on the phone on Dr Rowley’s departure. Without the full commission in place I did the next best thing and immediately wrote an Aide Memoire which was typed the following day.
For the record, let me state that the act of resignation holds no dragons for me. I have resigned from four previous national appointments under three different governments. In each instance it was a principled position against what I considered to be wrong. These are all matters of record. What I will not do is to be stampeded into taking such action for the wrong reasons.
Holders of offices such as Commissioners of the Integrity Commission are required to be independent and strong and should not bow to public pressure to step down especially when it comes from those with political agendas, whatever the persuasion. To do so would be to compromise the independence of the office.
Did Dr Rowley mislead you and lead you into a trap?
Not at all. He was brief and to the point and so was I. In fact my response to him that the matter was not before the commission because the commission was not as yet constituted was not news. That was public knowledge and I had made similar public references earlier when explaining the status quo. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes from beginning to end
Was the meeting in violation of the ethical rules that guide the Commission?
Most certainly not.
Will this controversy discourage prospective commissioners from joining the commission?
There will always be controversy surrounding the work of Integrity Commissions for its decisions affect the lives of people. In the end the commission will earn respect if it is consistently fair. Unfortunately some in society use these differences to promote partisan agendas. If prospective commissioners are not prepared to accept this tough but necessary responsibility they should not make themselves available for office.
If the circumstances were repeated tomorrow would you act differently?
What I would do differently is to ensure that I had a fuller understanding of the nature of the urgency which existed before arranging the meeting that afternoon. Equally in the light of what has transpired I would do everything possible to ensure that I had a clearly spelt out remit for the office of sole commissioner.
Would you recuse yourself from this matter if it comes before the Commission
Our former commission decided that good corporate governance should be the bench mark for the practices of the commission, and has been guided by such principles. Recusal is a matter which has implications for the full commission and this has been reinforced by Justice Kokaram’s recent Judgment. Our former commission has been guided by the importance of public perception in all matters of recusal and I feel certain that the new commission will be similarly guided.
On the occasion when the commission took a decision on recusal the High Court gave useful guidance to the commission for the future. Public perception will therefore be an important part of any decision the commission takes on recusal. Having said that let me add that I recused myself from this matter at the very first meeting of the new commission on July 4, 2013 some eight days before any request that I do so was received.
Mrs Gafoor has made a number of uncomplimentary remarks about you. Will you respond?
I have no comment to make about this good lady. Justice Kokaram’s judgment in the matters she brought against the Integrity Commission last year says all that needs to be said.