INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Download Report pdf version

INTEGRITY COMMISSION
4
1.0 CHAIRMAN’S LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
November 11, 2010
Hon. Ian Douglas
Minister for Legal Affairs
Ministry of Legal Affairs
Government Headquarters
Dear Sir,
ANNUAL REPORT OF COMMISSION TO PARLIAMENT
The Integrity Commission of the Commonwealth of Dominica submits
the Annual Report to the Minister on its activities during its second
year of operation to be tabled in the House of Assembly within three
months of its reception in accordance with Section 48 (1) and (2) of
the Integrity in Public Office Act 2003, No.6 of 2003.
I feel constrained, with some diffidence, to restate here that
notwithstanding the mandatory imperative by Parliament under
section 49 of the Act that the Commission “shall be provided with a
staff adequate for the prompt and efficient discharge of its functions
under the Act” and the timeous recommendations made for the filling
of the office of Secretary, the Commission was compelled to function
without a substantive holder in that office (either by contractual
appointment on terms approved by the Cabinet or otherwise) for more
than thirteen (13) months during the period June 9, 2009 to July 31,
2010. This posed severe constraints on the expeditious carrying out
of the work of the Commission given the small size of the staff
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
5
complement. By section 12(1) of the Act, Parliament also mandated
that “there shall be a Secretary to the Commission” who is required to
perform the section 12(2) duties under the Act.
In a memorandum submitted to you within one month of its
establishment, in recommendations made in the First Annual Report
and in further communications during this year, the Commission drew
to your attention the need to amend the First Schedule and the Third
Schedule Form 2 to the Act in order to reduce vagueness or ambiguity
in the statutory definition of the offices of persons in public life and
make more comprehensive the list of these offices, and to make Form
2 more user-friendly. Several recommendations for amendments to
the Act, including provisions to empower the Commission to extend
for good cause the deadline for the filing of declarations, were also
made. The Commission’s letter to you of 11
th
May 2010 contains
additional recommendations for textual amendments to the Act under
the sections dealing with, inter alia, trust property, the functions of the
Commission and its inability to investigate of its own volition and the
protection of complainants who make in good faith reports of acts of
corruption to the Commission. Up to the time of this Report no
Regulations have been made by the Minister for amendments to the
Schedules, nor has the Commission been informed of any draft
legislation to amend the Act to take into consideration its
recommendations or otherwise. I again urge that the Commission’s
recommendations be given due consideration.
During this year, the Commission also felt obliged to write to the
Minister for Legal Affairs and to the Minister for Finance on
administrative actions, circulars and decisions that the Commission
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
6
considers to be impermissible intrusions in the exercise of its functions
as an independent statutory authority established by Parliament.
The Commission as an emanation of the State is properly part of “the
business of the Government” within the meaning of the Constitution
assignable to a Minister and therefore the Minister with the portfolio so
assigned has responsibility to Parliament for its general administration
subject to the Commission’s autonomous functions, and the Minister
for Finance has the responsibilities for financial resources spelt out in
section 52 of the Act and other applicable laws. The true intendment
of the constitutional provision is that ministerial responsibility must be
exercised in such a manner that the inference may not be drawn that
the ministries are seeking to interfere with the field of the statutory
independence of the Commission. No responses have been received
by the Commission to its letters to the Ministers on the issues raised.
The Commission’s experience in the discharge of its sections 9(a) and
14 functions under the Act over the past two years has forcefully
revealed that comprehensive investigations into the financial affairs of
persons in public life require high level professional staff in the field of
forensic and investigative accountancy. A request for the provision of
such staff will be made to you shortly.
The Commission is continuously seeking to contribute to the
promotion of probity, integrity and accountability in public life in the
Commonwealth of Dominica within the parameters set by Parliament
and invites the cooperation of all relevant constitutional authorities in
this regard.
This annual report covers the activities of the Commission during the
period 1
st
September 2009 to 31
st
August 2010, except that matters
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
7
begun during that period but concluded shortly thereafter are also
included.
Yours very sincerely,
Julian N. Johnson
Chairman
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
8
2.0 INTEGRITY COMMISSION’S PRAYER
We stand before you, Holy Spirit
Conscious of our imperfections
but aware that we gather in your name.
Come to us, remain with us
Enlighten our hearts and give us light and strength
So that all our decisions may be
Just and fair and in accordance with our Oath of Office.
Guide us by your wisdom,
Support us by your power,
for you are God,
Sharing the glory of Father and Son.
You desire justice for all:
Enable us to uphold the rights of others,
Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance
or corrupted by fear or favour.
Unite us to yourself in the bond of love
and keep us faithful to all that is true.
Amen.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
9
3.0 VISION STATEMENT
To foster the development of a nation free of corruption and governed
by persons in public life who are imbued with the highest standard of
integrity.
4.0 MISSION STATEMENT
The Integrity Commission will promote integrity in governance by
providing effective oversight of the administration of public functions in
order to encourage transparency in transactions, and maintain legal
compliance by persons in public life and other public officials so that
public institutions will be free of corruption, and so that the highest
standards of honesty, equity and fairness will be observed in the use
of public resources and in the distribution of benefits for the welfare of
the people of our nation.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
10
5.0 INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003
5.1 Statutory Authority
The Integrity in Public Office Act 2003, No. 6 of 2003, was passed in
the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Dominica on the 30
th
day of
April, 2003, was assented to by His Excellency the President on the
29
th
day of May, 2003 and was published in the Official Gazette on the
5
th
day of June, 2003.
Section 1(2) of the Act provides that the Act shall come into operation
on such day as the President may, by Order published in the Gazette,
appoint. The Integrity in Public Office (Commencement) Order, 2008,
SRO No. 24 of 2008 appointing the 1
st
September, 2008 as the day
on which the Act should come into force, was published in the Official
Gazette on the 14
th
August, 2008. The Commission was appointed
on the 2
nd
September 2008 and the Commissioners took their oaths
on that day.
5.2 Application and Scope of the Act
The Integrity in Public Office Act 2003 applies to all persons in public
life, that is, persons holding any office or position set out in Part I of
the First Schedule or persons acting continuously for not less than six
months in any office set out in Part II of the First Schedule. These
include members of the House of Assembly, permanent secretaries,
some senior public and police officers, advisers to ministers,
chairmen, General Managers and Managing Directors of public
institutions and Chief Technical Officers in the public service.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
11
According to the interpretation clause (section 2), Chief Technical
Officer “includes the Chief Physical Planner and any Director or head
of department or deputy head of department however described in a
Government Ministry or Department”. In the process of deciding on
the list of persons who fell within that office, the Commission
consulted with the Chief Personnel Officer, Establishment, Personnel
and Training Department and the Secretary to the Public Service
Commission. Based on the advice received as to which offices were
considered Deputy Heads of Department in the public service and the
appointing authority to these offices, the Commission included Senior
Administrative Officers, Administrative Officers and Assistant
Secretaries as positions falling within the office of ‘Chief Technical
Officer’ under the Act. In considering an objection raised by an officer
holding the office of Senior Administrative Officer, the Commission
reviewed its decision concerning the offices falling within the definition
of ‘Chief Technical Officer’. Based on this review, the Commission
removed the offices of Senior Administrative Officer, Administrative
Officer and Assistant Secretary from the list of persons in public life.
See Appendix I for the list of persons in public life.
The Commission also decided to exclude the office of the Executive
Director, National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
(NTRC) from the list of persons in public life since the office held by
him was not designated ‘Managing Director’ or ‘General Manager’ as
listed in the First Schedule to the Act.
Apologies were extended to holders of those offices who had already
declared or did not declare and were published in the Official Gazette.
Notices of apology to the persons affected are attached at Appendix
II.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
12
The Commission is of the view that the list of offices of persons in
public life needs to be amended to remove those public officers and
others who serve on Boards and Commissions whose roles and
functions do not justify their being subject to the level of scrutiny
required by the Act. In addition to its recommendations already made
for amendments to the list of persons in public life, the Commission is
also of the view that consideration should be given to the inclusion of
Chairmen of local authorities to the list. These changes only require
an amendment to the First Schedule to the Act by the Minister for
Legal Affairs.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
13
6.0 THE COMMISSION AND ITS FUNCTIONS
6.1 Membership
Section 4(1) of the Act provides for the Integrity Commission to
comprise:
a) A Chairman, who shall be a former Judge of the High Court,
an attorney-at-law of fifteen years standing at the Bar or a
former Chief Magistrate;
b) Two members appointed by the President on the advice of the
Prime Minister;
c) Two members appointed by the President on the advice of the
Leader of the Opposition;
d) A chartered or certified accountant appointed by the President
on the recommendation of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Dominica or like body however described;
e) An attorney-at-law appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the Dominica Bar Association.
The Prime Minister is required to consult with the Leader of the
Opposition before tendering advice to the President on the
appointment of the Chairman. Members appointed under subsections
(1) (b) and (c) shall be persons of high public standing and reputation
for personal integrity.
Section 5 of the Act stipulates that a person shall not be qualified to
be appointed as a member of the Commission if that person:
a) is a person in public life or is otherwise exercising a public
function;
b) would otherwise be disqualified to be a member of the House
of Assembly;
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
14
c) has, at any time during three years immediately preceding the
date of appointment, been a public officer; or
d) has, at any time during five years immediately preceding the
date of appointment, held office in a political party.
The Integrity Commission of Dominica comprises:
Mr. Julian N Johnson Chairman
Mr. Alick Lazare Member
Mr. Wendell Lawrence Member
Mrs. Patricia Inglis Member
Mr. George Williams Member
Mr. Gerald Smith Member
Sir Brian Alleyne Member
There were no changes in membership over the reporting period.
Appendix III shows professional profiles of the members of the
Commission.
6.2 Functions
Section 9 of the Act sets out the functions of the Commission as
follows:
a) receive, examine and retain all declarations filed with it under
the Act;
b) make such enquiries as it considers necessary in order to
verify or determine the accuracy of any declarations filed under
the Act;
c) without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment,
inquire into any allegation of bribery or act of corruption under
the Act;
d) receive and investigate complaints regarding non-compliance
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
15
with any provision of the Act; and
e) perform such other functions as is required under the Act.
The Commission is responsible to ensure that persons in public life
comply with the obligation in section 14 of the Act to file declarations
setting out their offices, incomes, assets (including the assets of their
spouses, children or relatives which have been acquired through or
traceable to their incomes) and liabilities, and gifts made by them in
excess of one thousand dollars. For the purposes of a declaration,
the income, assets and liabilities of a person in public life include the
income, assets and liabilities held or incurred by any other person as
his agent or acting on his behalf. Declarations are required to be filed
in accordance with Form 2 in the Third Schedule and within the times
prescribed in section 16 of the Act.
In monitoring compliance with sections 14 and 15 the Commission is
required to examine every declaration filed with it, and request from
declarants any information or explanation or further particulars which
it considers necessary in order to verify or determine the accuracy of
every declaration. The Commission shall publish a certificate in
respect of a person in public life when it is satisfied that a declaration
is fully made. It is also empowered to hold formal inquiry into the
accuracy or fullness of declarations filed with it or into the sources of
income of persons in public life when it suspects possession of
unaccounted property. It is also required to gazette cases of noncompliance
and refer matters that are in breach of any of the
provisions of the Act to the Director of Public Prosecutions for further
action.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
16
Section 17 of the Act provides: “Where a person in public life holds
money or other property in trust for another person, he shall so state
in his declaration”. In recognition of legal professional privilege, the
Commission decided that persons in public life who are members of
the legal profession, must, in order to comply with the Act, file only a
statement of the total amounts held in trust accounts at the relevant
dates without disclosing the names of the beneficiaries.
Under Part V, the Commission is also required to investigate gifts
accepted by persons in public life.
One of the most important functions of the Commission, under section
32 of the Act, is to receive and examine complaints made to it
concerning breaches of the Code of Conduct as set out in the Second
Schedule. The Code prohibits conduct which tends to create conflict
between the person in public life’s private interests and his public
duties.
Provision is made for the Commission to inquire into any allegation of
bribery or corruption under Part VI of the Act.
6.3 Declaration of Financial Affairs
Section 14 of the Act requires that
“1) every person in public life shall file a declaration with the
Commission setting out –
a) his office or offices;
b) his income, assets and liabilities;
c) the assets of his wife, children or relative acquired through or
traceable to his income; and
d) gifts made by him in value exceeding one thousand dollars.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
17
2) the declaration shall be in Form 2 of the Third Schedule.”
Form 2 of the Third Schedule had been found deficient both in content
and design. The layout of information headings did not follow a
rational sequence and the space provided for inputting information is
inadequate. The Commission issued an expanded Form 2 allowing
more space to furnish more details, and explanatory notes for
completing the Form. Recommendations have been made to the
Minister for amending Form 2.
The staff of the Commission provided support to those persons
requiring assistance in completing their declarations.
Table 1 provides data on declarations filed and examined during the
reporting period 2009 – 2010.
Activities 2009/10 2008/09
No. of persons in public life listed 147 136
No. of persons who filed 134 111
No. of persons who did not file 13 25
No. of declarations certified 92 78
No. of declarations filed in error 10 38
No. of queries sent out 33 58
No. of queries answered 26 51
No. of persons gazetted for not filing 13 25
No. of persons gazetted for late filing 33 15
No. of cases reported to DPP for not filing 13 25
No. of cases reported to DPP for late filing 33 15
Table 1: Data on Declarations
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
18
Further public education is needed to promote more widespread
understanding of the statutory powers of the Commission, the
obligations of persons in public life as regards financial disclosure and
the role that civil society can play.
With respect to persons who had failed to file declarations and who
had filed late for the income year 2008, the DPP determined that due
to the statutory limitation of six months in respect of summary
offences, prosecution was statute-barred. This statutory limitation
became applicable due to delayed submission by the Commission on
account of staff and administrative constraints.
During the year under review, a number of persons failed to file
declarations or failed to respond to requests for further particulars.
The names of these persons were published in the Official Gazette
and reported to the Director for Public Prosecution. The lists of these
persons are shown at Appendix IV.
In respect of the current reporting period, the Commission redoubled
its efforts to expedite the examination of declarations and the early
submission of reports to the DPP and publication in the Official
Gazette within a time frame that enabled the DPP to take action in his
discretion. The DPP has decided to prosecute twenty-six (26) persons
in public life for non-compliance with the Act.
In this connection, mention must be made of the reaction of the
Speaker of the House of Assembly who objected strongly using the
public media to denounce the Commissioners for submitting her name
to the DPP. The Commission must draw attention to the need for
senior public officials to exercise restraint in their public utterances
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
19
about the work of the Commission which could have the effect of
undermining the Commission’s credibility.
The Commission is in the process of completing a Manual of
Procedure with respect to the filing and processing of declarations.
6.4 Confidentiality and Security of Declarations
Under section 20 of the Act Parliament has imposed the duty on the
Commission to maintain the confidentiality of the declarations and
information received from persons in public life. Unauthorized
disclosure of any declaration filed with the Commission is unlawful
and an offence under the Act punishable by fine and imprisonment.
The prosecution of any such person falls within the constitutional
functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, by virtue of
section 56 of the Act, his consent is required for the prosecution of
such an offence.
The members of the Commission, the staff and every person
performing any function in the service of the Commission are required
to treat all declarations, or information relating to such declarations, as
secret and confidential and shall not disclose or communicate to any
unauthorised person or allow any such person to have access to any
such declaration or information. The Commission and staff have all
sworn to secrecy in accordance with the Oath of Secrecy in the Fourth
Schedule to the Act.
The Commission has taken seriously its confidentiality obligations. It
has taken appropriate steps to ensure that the declarations filed with it
under the Act do not come into the hands of unauthorized persons
within the meaning of the Act. Express terms have been included in
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
20
the service contract of employees forbidding disclosure and providing
for termination of contract for breach of this term. In addition, section
21 of the Act prescribes that any person who contravenes the secrecy
and confidentiality provisions of the Act commits an offence and is
liable to a fine of ten thousand dollars and imprisonment on summary
conviction.
In the year under review, two declarants questioned the authority of
the Secretary in addressing queries to them. The Commission made
it clear that the Secretary was acting on its behalf and with its
authority.
6.5 Gifts
The Act declares that it is unlawful for a person in public life to accept
a gift as a reward for any official act done by him or as an inducement
for any official act to be done. This reflects the well-established
prohibition of bribery in respect of performance or non-performance of
public duties. Exceptions are made in respect of gifts or rewards from
a foreign dignitary on the occasion of an official visit where there is
reasonable ground to believe that refusal of the gift or reward may
offend the dignitary.
Gifts may also be accepted from community organizations on social
occasions when the gift or reward represents the work or achievement
of the community organization, as well as gifts given on occasions
such as marriage, retirement or transfer, or similar social or
celebratory occasions. It is implied that such exempted gifts must not
be intended or perceived as bribes, but must be given simply in the
context of the social occasion and for no improper motive. For that
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
21
reason a person in public life receiving a gift on such occasions must
make a report to the Commission in the prescribed form within thirty
(30) days of the receipt of the gift. The Commission then holds an
inquiry, and if it finds that the gift was given to the person in public life
personally, and that the gift was trivial or, if not trivial, it was not
intended to be a motive or reward for doing or abstaining from doing
anything, or causing any other person to do or not to do anything in
the course of the performance of official functions (a bribe), the
Commission shall allow the person in public life to keep the gift. The
person in public life is entitled to be given notice of the inquiry, and to
be represented at the inquiry, either in person or by an attorney-atlaw.
Where the Commission finds that the gift was given as a state gift, or
that, even if given personally, the gift was not trivial or was intended
as a bribe, the Commission must direct the person in public life in
writing to deliver the gift to the Financial Secretary within not more
than 30 days. The person in public life must comply with the
Commission’s direction within the time specified. The gift is treated as
a gift to the State.
It is an offence for the person in public life to make a report which is
incomplete or false in any material particular or not to comply with a
direction to deliver the gift to the Financial Secretary. The offence
attracts a fine equal in value to the value of the gift or $7,500.00,
whichever is greater, and to imprisonment for 3 months.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
22
In the period under review, the Commission dealt with one such case,
in which the person in public life reported the receipt of a non-trivial
gift, and complied with the Commission’s directive to deliver the gift to
the Financial Secretary.
6.6 Independence and Autonomy
Given its statutory purpose and oversight responsibilities, Parliament
specifically provided for the independence and autonomy of the
Commission and enacted under section 13 that: “The Commission
shall in the exercise of its functions under this Act not be subject to
the control or direction of any person or authority.” The meaning and
import of this provision are similar to the constitutional provisions
securing the independence of autonomous functionaries and
institutions under the Constitution, for example, the Director of Audit
(sections 83 and 89 of the Constitution) the Director of Public
Prosecutions (section 88 of the Constitution) and the Electoral
Commission (section 56 of the Constitution). This implies freedom
from political direction and control in the exercise of its functions.
Parliament thought it a necessary requirement of the Act in order that
the Commission could perform its statutory duties impartially and
effectively.
The Executive has an important role to play in furthering the
objectives of the Act. Section 49 mandates that the Commission shall
be provided with staff adequate for the prompt and efficient discharge
of its functions. Section 52 stipulates that the expenses of the
Commission should be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, but its
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
23
estimates of expenditure must be submitted to the Minister for
Finance for approval, while section 48 requires the Commission to
make an annual report to the Minister for Legal Affairs which report
shall be tabled in Parliament no later than three months after its
receipt. Also, section 59 mandates the Minister to make Regulations
in respect of some areas of the Act “generally for the effective
implementation of the provisions of this Act.” No such Regulations
have been made.
There are however, certain administrative rules and practices
intended for public officers and government departments which are
being extended to the Commission contrary to the intention of section
13 of the Act. In one case the Chairman was required to travel
abroad on urgent and extremely sensitive business of the
Commission. Due to the immediacy of the matter, the Commission
agreed that the Chairman should travel using his own funds and
receive reimbursement on his return. On the submission of a claim,
reimbursement was denied on the grounds that the prior approval of
the Prime Minister on a standard Application for Travel form had not
been obtained. The form required the Chairman to give full particulars
of the purpose of the mission abroad including its expected outcome.
The extension of such administrative rules to the Commission is
clearly incompatible with the provision of section 13 of the Act, and
the Commission has so informed the Minister for Finance. No
response has been received from the Minister.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
24
6.7 Possession of Unaccounted Property
There has been much discussion in the country, and even criticism of
the Commission, for its perceived failure to act in response to
allegations of corruption made in the media against persons in public
life. In this connection mention is often made of the provisions of
section 47(2) of the Act which speaks of suspicion concerning the
possession of unaccounted property.
Section 47(2) of the Act provides that where a person in public life, or
any other person on his behalf, is suspected to be in possession of
property or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his legitimate
sources of income, the Commission shall conduct an inquiry into the
source of income of the person.
In applying this provision, the Commission must be guided by the
authoritative pronouncements which have been made in relation to
the word ‘suspicion’ in a statutory context. In any attempt to act on
suspicion, the Commission must be guided by the authoritative dictum
which has been given by the courts. In Darren Miller v. Commissioner
of Police, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal had to consider
“whether there was sufficient evidence to support reasonable
suspicion.” The learned Chief Justice (Saunders C. J (Ag.) as he then
was, now a Justice of the Caribbean Court of Justice) declared that “It
was vital to the case for the prosecution that, before Miller could be
called upon to render an account, there should be cogent evidence
giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the money found was stolen
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
25
or unlawfully obtained. … The test is objective.” It would be unwise
for the Commission to ignore such authoritative statements of the law.
The Commission continues to keep these concerns under
consideration.
It is necessary to record that acting on e-mails received from an
anonymous source – forumcitizens@yahoo.com – the Commission
posed several questions to a person in public life concerning the
allegations made in these emails. Contact by email was also sought
to be made with forumcitizens@yahoo.com but there was no reply.
The person in public life by his solicitors informed the Commission
that he had “no interest whatsoever as alleged or at all” in the named
property and objected to the Commission’s questions on several
grounds. After further deliberations, including the consideration of
independent legal advice, the Commission informed the person in
public life that it would not be treating the communication from
forumcitizens@yahoo.com as a complaint which triggers those of the
Commission’s functions under the Act which require a complaint.
The examination and the decision of the Commission in this matter
raised several issues relating to the powers of the Commission under
the existing provisions of the Act of 2003 on its true construction. For
example, the function of the Commission under section 9(d) of the Act
is to “receive and investigate complaints regarding non-compliance
with any provision of this Act”. The Commission under this provision
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
26
is not empowered to act on the basis of anonymous complaints.
Section 9(d) read with section 55(1) limit the power of the Commission
to acting on a complaint from an identifiable person. This is
buttressed by the strong common law presumption that a person
accused is entitled to confront those who testify against the accused.
(c.f. R. v Davis [2008] UKHL 36).
Complaints to the Commission against a person in public life for noncompliance
with the Act must therefore be made by a person who
must discharge the burden of proof in any proceedings commenced
by the Commission on the allegations made by him. Allegations of
breaches of the Act to the Commission must be made by a person,
within the meaning of the Act, i.e., by a natural person or “a public
body, company, partnership, trust, association or body of persons
whether corporate or incorporate”, but not by an anonymous source or
entity (Interpretation and General Clauses Act, Chap. 3:01; Laws of
Dominica, section 3).
Furthermore, Parliament has not empowered the Commission to act
on its own initiative to investigate allegations of breaches of the Act.
Under Section 47(2) the Commission has a duty to inquire into the
source of income of a person in public life if it suspects that person or
any other person acting on his behalf to be in possession of
unaccounted property. An anonymous complaint or media
speculation, however, cannot properly form the basis of such
suspicion by virtue of section 55 (1) of the Act.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
27
6.8 Inability to act of its own volition
One of the major deficiencies identified which seriously affects the
work of the Commission is the constraints placed on the ability of the
Commission to act of its own volition to inquire into allegations of
bribery and corruption and complaints regarding non-compliance with
the Act. This is in sharp contrast to the powers given to the Integrity
Commission in Trinidad and Tobago. The Trinidad and Tobago
integrity legislation provides, materially, as follows: “33. The
Commission – (a) may on its own initiative or (b) shall upon the
complaint of any member of the public, consider and enquire into
alleged breaches of the Act or any allegations of corrupt or dishonest
conduct,” and “34. (1) In carrying out its function under section 33,
the Commission may—
(a) authorize an investigating officer to conduct an enquiry into
any alleged or suspected offence;
(b) require any person, in writing, to produce, within a
specified time, all books, records, accounts, reports, data,
stored electronically or otherwise, or any other documents
relating to the functions of any public or private body;
(c) require any person, within a specified time, to provide any
information or to answer any question which the Commission
considers necessary in connection with any enquiry or
investigation which the Commission is empowered to conduct
under this Act;
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
28
(d) require that any facts, matters or documents relating to the
allegations or breach, be verified or otherwise ascertained by
oral examination of the person making the complaint; or
(e) cause any witness to be summoned and examined upon
oath.
(2) Where, in the course of any enquiry the Commission is satisfied
that there is a need to further expedite its investigations, it may
exercise the following powers:
(a) require any person to furnish a statement in writing—
(i) enumerating all movable or immovable property belonging
to or possessed by him in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere,
or held in trust for him, and specifying the date on which each
such property was acquired and the consideration paid
therefore, and explaining whether it was acquired by way of
purchase, gift, inheritance or otherwise;
(ii) specifying any monies or other property acquired in
Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere or sent out of Trinidad and
Tobago by him or on his behalf during a specified period;
(b) require any person to furnish, notwithstanding the
provisions of any other written law to the contrary, all
information in his possession relating to the affairs of any
suspected person being investigated and to produce or furnish
any document or true copy of any document relating to the
person under investigation and which is in the possession or
under the control of the person required to furnish the
information;
(c) require the manager of any bank, or financial institution, in
addition to furnishing information specified in paragraph (b), to
furnish any information or certified copies, of the accounts or
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
29
the statement of accounts at the bank or financial institution of
any person being investigated.
(3) A person who fails or refuses to disclose any such information or
to produce any such documents, commits an offence and is liable to
a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and imprisonment for
a term of three years.
(4) Any person who knowingly misleads the Commission, or an
investigating officer of the Commission, by giving false information,
commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars and imprisonment for a term of
five years.
(5) Where after the conduct of an investigation, the Commission is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an
offence has been committed, it shall make a report to the Director of
Public Prosecutions who may take such action as he thinks
appropriate.” [The Integrity in Public Life (Amendment) Act, 2000 –
Trinidad and Tobago].
As our legislation now stands, except in respect of its functions under
section 9(b) of the Act, the Commission’s power to act is severely
circumscribed. Experience however shows that in small societies
complaint from the public should not be the main means by which
persons in public life could be called to account.
Additionally, section 32(2) of the Act tends to discourage persons
coming forward with legitimate complaints. Two complaints made to
the Commission in 2008 may be illustrative of this point. In both
cases, decisions handed down by the Commission in respect to
these complaints made under section 31 of the Act drew attention to
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
30
the legal implications to the complainant if the complaint is
considered defamatory. Drawing attention to this provision of the Act
may have had the unintended consequence of dissuading people
who may have legitimate grounds from making complaints.
Furthermore, section 55(2) and (3) may be construed as elevating to
the status of a criminal offence punishable by a fine, and even
imprisonment, the tort of defamation which is ordinarily a civil matter
attracting damages in the civil courts. Apart from the two complaints
which the Commission received when it was first established in
September 2008 there have been no other complaints from the public
which comply with the terms of the Act. These limitations raise
questions as to whether the Act may not be tilted too far in favour of
persons in public life. The Commission has recommended to the
Minister for Legal Affairs that it be provided with power similar to the
provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Trinidad and Tobago Act of
2000.
It is further recommended that provisions similar to section 37 of the
Trinidad and Tobago Act be incorporated in our statute. Section 37 of
the Trinidad and Tobago Act state: “The Commission may on its own
initiative consider any matter with respect to the duty or obligation of a
person under this Act, where in its opinion it is in the public interest to
do so”.
6.9 Code of Conduct
Section 30 of the Act mandates every person in public life to “observe
the body of rules known as the Code of Conduct, specified in the
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
31
Second Schedule.” Section 31 provides for “a person who has
reasonable grounds to believe that any person in public life has
breached any provision of the Code of Conduct may make a
complaint in writing to the Commission.”
Under section 31 Parliament has prescribed that any such complaint
must contain the following:
(a) the particulars of the breach;
(b) the particulars, as far as they are known, of the person
against whom the complaint is made;
(c) the nature of the evidence that the complainant proposes to
produce in respect of the complaint; and
(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed in Regulations
made by the Minister.
A letter dated August 17, 2010, from a member of the public
addressed to the Commission contained the following allegations: “I
bring to your attention for necessary legal action the theft of over one
hundred and ninety-three thousand dollars from the Treasury of the
Commonwealth of Dominica through the 2008 purchase of garbage
bins from Logistical Supply Solutions Inc. This act of theft has
resulted in breaches of sections (a), (c), (d), (e) and (i) of the Code of
Conduct of the Integrity in Public Office Act, number 6 of 2003. I
contend that in the purchase of the garbage bins by the Office of the
Prime Minister, some person or persons dishonestly obtained money
belonging to the state by deception.”
The Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the Financial Secretary,
the Secretary to the Cabinet and the Director of Audit were named as
the public officials who were alleged to be involved in and
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
32
knowledgeable about the transactions that facilitated the act of theft.
The letter was accompanied by copies of emails and a letter
purported to be exchanged between the vendor of the bins and the
persons in public life that were said to be involved in and
knowledgeable of those transactions.
In examining the letter the issue whether it constituted a complaint
under section 31 of the Act fell to be considered by the Commission.
The Commission decided that the letter of August 17, 2010 does not
contain the prescribed requirements which constitute a complaint that
satisfies section 31 of the Act for the following reasons:
(a) While the letter does allege breaches of the Code of Conduct,
section 31 (a) of the Act requires that there be stated particulars
(details) of the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and no
such particulars are contained therein. Similarly, section 31(b)
requires that there be stated particulars of the person against
whom the complaint is made and again no such particulars are
contained therein. Having failed to satisfy the requirements of
section 31 (a) and (b) there is no basis to consider the
documents submitted with the letter for compliance with section
31 (c).
(b) Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act constituted by the
dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with
the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. (Section
3 of the Theft Act, Chap. 10:33, Laws of Dominica, 1990
Revised Edition). However, theft is not an offence which the
Commission is empowered to deal with under the Act.
(c)The office of the Director of Audit is not included in the list of
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
33
offices respecting persons in public life in the First Schedule to
the Act and therefore section 30 of the Act does not apply to
him. [First Schedule to the Public Service Act, Chap 23:01 as
amended by Public Service (Schedules) (Amendment) Order,
2009, S.R.O. No.1 of 2009 (Gazetted 5
th
February, 2009) and
sections 83 & 89 of the Constitution, Chap.1:01 and Appendix
II of the First Annual Report, Integrity Commission of Dominica,
30
th
September 2009].
The Commission has informed the author of the letter accordingly. If
the Commission receives a complaint which complies with the
requirements of the Act as set out above, the Commission shall
examine the matter and take such action as prescribed.
A crucial area that the Code seeks to address is conflict of interest
which occurs when the private interests of a person in public life clash
or even coincide with his duties. It gives rise to ethical issues which
may be actual, potential or apparent.
During the year under review, the Commission again drew the
attention of a person in public life to a situation reported in his
declaration which could generate conflict of interest. While there was
no evidence of actual conflict of interest the Commission continued to
be concerned that the potential for conflict of interest was sufficiently
grave and should be avoided.
Civil society and institutions including churches, professional bodies,
trade unions, and crucially, the media, have an important role to play
in familiarizing themselves with and encouraging compliance with the
high principles contained in the Code and inculcating in society a
culture of integrity and probity in public life.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
34
Public attitude is important in buttressing the legislation in order to
force persons in public life to observe high standards of behaviour
contained in the Code. Transparency International has observed:
“Questions of law can ultimately be resolved by the courts. Matters of
ethics are, by definition, unable to be resolved by resort to rules of
law”.
The Commission’s effectiveness can be enhanced by working in
harmony with other oversight institutions which have roles in fostering
the maintenance and sustainability of all elements comprising ethical
governance. These institutions include the Public Accounts
Committee of the House of Assembly, the Office of the Director of
Audit, and the various Service Commissions. All these institutions
should work together in cultivating a culture in which integrity and
probity in public life are the norm, so that behaviour that falls short of
this norm is rejected by society at large.
6.10 Bribery and Corruption
During the year no allegations were received by the Commission
under this part of the Act.
Corruption and fraud are clearly recognized as abhorrent, and the
highest legal authority has described bribery as “an evil practice which
threatens the foundation of any civilized society” (A.G. v Reid (1994) 1
A.C.344, HL). These conclusions are reflected in sections 9(c) and
Part VI of the Act where provision is made for the Commission to
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
35
inquire into any allegation of bribery or act of corruption made under
the Act.
The penalties which the Act prescribes for offenses under these
sections of the act include fines, imprisonment (of up to 10 years) and
forfeiture of any advantage which may have been received.
The Act discourages the making of false or malicious allegations
against persons in public life by stipulating that the burden of proof of
any allegation of bribery or corruption lies with the accuser; and the
making of such allegations is a criminal offence attracting heavy
penalties that could include imprisonment of up to 10 years.
6.11 Accountability in Public Procurement
In its first Annual Report the Commission noted the report of the
Director of Audit on the public accounts for 2008 on the issues
surrounding the purchase of garbage bins by the office of the Prime
Minister. The Director of Audit found: (i) that bins of less intrinsic
value than what was contracted for were received by the Office of the
Prime Minister; (ii) that the accounting officer in the Office of the Prime
Minister should do everything legally possible to ensure that the extraordinary
gain of $557,783.33 realized by the vendor should be
refunded to the Consolidated Fund; and (iii) that the Government of
Dominica “did not ‘receive value for money” in this transaction. The
Commission concurred with the Report’s conclusions on action that
needed to be taken in the light of what appeared to be violations of
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
36
Financial (Store) Regulations (SRO 23 of 1980) and the Finance
(Administration) Act, Chapter 63.01of the Laws of Dominica.
At the time of compilation of the Commission’s second Annual Report
the Director of Audit’s Report on the public accounts for 2009 was not
available but it is assumed that it will contain references to the
decisions, if any, by the Public Accounts Committee on the issues
and, more especially, the administrative actions which have been
taken in compliance with the Finance (Administration) Act for failure to
comply with Regulation 262 of the Financial (Stores) Regulations.
These provisions place a statutory obligation on Accounting Officers
to ensure that proper control and economy are exercised over the
purchase of stores, plant, vehicles and equipment, and that the
taxpayer receives value for money and the circumstances giving rise
to action by the Financial Secretary for failure to observe these
Regulations.
6.12 Consultations – Meeting with Prime Minister
At the invitation of the Prime Minister, a delegation from the Integrity
Commission met with him at his office on Wednesday, June 23, 2010.
In attendance were the Minister for Legal Affairs, the Attorney General
and the Financial Secretary. The Commission’s delegation comprised
the Chairman and Commissioners Lazare and Williams. A number of
matters, including amendments to the Act, staffing of the Commission,
travel on business of the Commission – refund to the Chairman, were
discussed.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
37
The Chairman referred to earlier correspondence to Government in
which the Integrity Commission had made recommendations for
amendments to the 2003 Act, namely, letters of 30
th
September,
2008, 10
th
October, 2008, 4
th
September, 2009 and 11
th
May, 2010
(see Appendix V) in addition to the recommendations contained at
Appendix VI of the First Annual Report of 31
st
August 2009.
The Chairman drew particular attention to the recommended
amendments to the First Schedule in order to give clarity and
precision to the designation “Chief Technical Officer” and to the Third
Schedule Form 2, to make this form more user-friendly and at the
same time facilitate scrutiny of declarations by the Commission.
These amendments could be made by Regulations made by the
Ministry of Legal Affairs. As regards amendments to the Act requiring
reference to Parliament the Chairman also drew attention to the
Commission’s recommendations for changes to section 16 of the Act
dealing with the filing of declarations to give the Commission
discretion to extend for a limited period, and for good cause the date
for filing a declaration, bearing in mind that there are extenuating
circumstances why a person might not be able to file by the due date.
Also discussed was the question of reimbursement to the Chairman of
travel expenses incurred, at the request of the Commission, in
connection with confidential Commission business. The Chairman
reiterated the Commission’s view that the prior approval requested by
the Minister of Finance for members of the Commission to travel in the
performance of the functions of the Commission constituted an
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
38
unacceptable intrusion on the independence of the Commission under
section 13 of the Act. (Letter to the Prime Minister on this matter is at
Appendix VI)
In response the Prime Minister indicated that as regards the
amendments to the Schedules, Government had agreed to adopt the
Commission’s recommendations and that an order giving effect to
these amendments would be issued within a month. As regards the
recommended amendments to the Act, the Prime Minister said that
Government had already considered and approved some ninety-eight
percent (98%) of those in the Commission’s Annual Report 2009, and
he took note of the offer of the Integrity Commission to meet with the
Cabinet in order to go through all recommendations submitted to
Government and provide any explanation and/or clarification that
might be needed.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
39
7.0 ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION
7.1 Organization
Three sub-committees have been organized for the purpose of
carrying out the functions of the Commission:
• The Rules Sub-Committee has responsibility to keep under
review the legal framework within which the Commission is
mandated to operate, and to develop rules and procedures for
performing its functions. The members are Julian N. Johnson,
Sir Brian Alleyne, and George Williams.
• The Finance and Administration (F&A) Sub-Committee has
responsibility to oversee the administration of the Commission
(including the selection of senior staff and the management of
the annual budget), as well as to conduct preliminary
examination of all declarations filed and to make
recommendations to the Commission. The members are Alick
Lazare, Gerald Smith, Wendell Lawrence and Patricia Inglis.
George Williams also attended meetings of the F&A subcommittee
and chaired the Interview Panels.
• The Education Sub-Committee has responsibility for
organizing the public education programme with the aim of
informing the public on matters relating to its operations, the
importance of integrity and probity in public life, and the role
that civil society must play in this regard. The members are
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
40
Wendell Lawrence, Sir Brian Alleyne, George Williams and
Patricia Inglis.
The Rules and the Education Sub-Committees are supported directly
by the Secretary, and the F&A Sub-Committee is supported by the
Research Assistant. Figure 1 shows the organization structure of the
Commission.
Fig. 1 Organization Structure of the Commission
7.2 Staffing
There are allocations for five members of staff to assist the
Commission with the day to day operations of its office. The full
Rules
Sub-committee
Education
Sub-committee
Finance & Administration
Sub-committee
Secretary
Research Assistant
Executive Officer
Junior Clerk Messenger
Commission
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
41
complement was only achieved from August 1, 2010. Over the
reporting period, 1
st
September 2009 to 31
st
August 2010, the
Commission functioned as noted in Table 2.
P1P6setth rS iDoededp c t eemmbbeerr 22000099 – R Setasfef a rch Assistant (Secretary Ag.) Temporary Junior Clerk
Temporary Messenger
7
th
December, 2009 –
31
st
July, 2010
Research Assistant (Secretary Ag.)
Executive Officer (Ag.)
Temporary Junior Clerk
Temporary Messenger
1
st
August, 2010 –
31
st
August, 2010
Secretary
Research Assistant
Executive Officer (Ag.)
Temporary Junior Clerk
Temporary Messenger
Table 2: Staff of the Commission over the year under review
Staff recruitment continues to be an area of difficulty due to the
requirement that the staff be public officers. This means that in
accordance with section 85 of the Constitution, they must be
appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC). In a small
operation the size of the Commission, staffing positions cannot remain
vacant without there being serious negative impacts on overall
efficiency. Yet PSC procedures inevitably result in long delays in
filling posts even after the Commission has recommended candidates
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
42
for appointment. In a few cases by the time an offer of appointment
was made the candidates were no longer available. In one case an
acting appointment was made after the substantive holder of the post
had returned to office after having completed vacation leave.
Section 12 of the Act provides for the appointment of a Secretary with
duties to include attendance at meetings of the Commission,
recording of minutes of each meeting in proper form and generally
performing duties connected with the work of the Commission. In
reality, the Secretary is expected to perform as Chief Executive Officer
with responsibility for the supervision of all staff as well as the
management of all functions of the office.
Due to delays in approving the Commission’s recommendations for
filling the post, a successor to Mrs. Alex Phillip, the first Secretary,
was not appointed until 1
st
August, 2010, a period of more than
thirteen (13) months during which this important position remained
vacant. The failure of the appointing authorities to make a timely
appointment further exacerbated the situation. During this time the
Commission necessarily had to function with the appointment of the
Research Assistant, Mrs. George, to act in the position of Secretary in
addition to her substantive duties, for which the Commission places
on record its appreciation. The Chairman also had to undertake
additional executive responsibilities by default.
Subsection (1) of section 50 of the Act provides that a member or the
Secretary to the Commission shall not enter upon the duties of his
office until he has taken the oath of allegiance, oath of office and oath
of secrecy as specified in the Fourth Schedule. Ms. Helen Ambo
took the oaths on August 5, 2010.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
43
In order to fulfill its statutory functions the Commission is expected,
indeed required to perform investigative work in certain
circumstances. Under section 53 the Commission is empowered to
request the assistance of the Commissioner of Police in connection
with the performance of its functions, and the Commissioner of Police
“shall provide or ensure the provision of such assistance”.
Nonetheless, the Commission is of the view that in the absence of its
own effective means of investigation, it may be unable to perform its
intended role, and therefore fail to expose cases of impropriety where
they may exist.
For the reasons stated above the Commission considers that the Act
should be amended to provide that the staff of the Commission should
be appointed and removed by the President on the advice of the
Commission (section 70 of the Constitution) or that these powers be
given to the Commission itself. In this latter case the Establishment,
Personnel and Training Department in consultation with the
Commission could set in advance the composition of the
Commission’s staff and the remuneration payable to holders of the
various staff positions, leaving it to the Commission to recruit, manage
and exercise disciplinary control over staff. An example of such an
arrangement can be found in the Jamaica Corruption (Prevention) Act
2000, where the Commission is empowered to appoint or employ
such officers and employees necessary for the proper carrying out of
its functions under the Act of 2000. This would expedite appointment
of suitable staff adequate for the prompt and efficient performance of
the Commission’s independent statutory functions.
7.3 Budget and Financial Operations
With regard to the preparation and management of budget and
finances for its operations, the Commission remains guided by the
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
44
procedures and rules of the Public Service. Table 1 presents a
comparative statement of the financial resources made available to
the Commission for the financing of its operations, and highlights the
details of the budget.
Table 3: Budget and Financial Operations
7.4 Meetings
The Commission held twenty-eight (28) meetings during the year,
including meetings with Mr. Howard Whitton from the Commonwealth
Secretariat. Attendance at these meetings is as shown below at
Table 4:
EPxepresnodniatul rEem oluments 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09
525,228 556,159 231,274
Wages
14,000 – –
Hosting and entertainment
1,500 1,500 –
Alowances
41,370 20,371 –
International travel & subsistence
16,500 15,000 –
Utilities
– 480 –
Supplies & materials
19,000 19,800 38,562
Maintenance and operations
6,900 5,400 –
Rental
– 55,200 36,925
Professional & consultancy services
15,000 10,000 –
Insurance
1,500 1,500 –
Sundry Expenses
9,000 9,900 33,454
Machinery & Equipment
4,000 – –
Total
653,998 695,310 340,214
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
45
Table 4: Commission meetings – Attendance
During these meetings the Commission discussed matters pertaining
to its operations, including reports from its three sub-committees.
In addition, the following sub-committee meetings were held as shown
below at Table 5:
Sub-committee No. of Meetings held
Finance and Administration 22
Rules 3
Education 6
Table 5: Meetings of Sub-commitees
Members No.
Attended
No.
Absent
Reasons for
Absence
Mr. Julian Johnson 28 0 –
Mr. Alick Lazare 26 2 Illness
Brian Alleyne 22 6 Out of State
Mr. George Williams 23 5 Out of State
Mrs Patricia Inglis 28 0 –
Mr Gerald Smith 27 1 Out of State
Mr. Wendell Lawrence 26 2 Illness
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
46
7.5 Library
The Commission maintained a library of reference books that assists it
in its work. Relevant updates were done, particularly with the
assistance of the Commonwealth Secretariat, as well as the
resources of the Commission and the International Law Book Facility.
The Library is available for use by all persons in public life, the media,
and all interested persons having regard to the confidentiality
requirements of the Office.
7.6 Technical Assistance
The Commission obtained the services of a short-term consultant, Mr.
Howard Whitton, from the Commonwealth Secretariat to examine its
procedures and make other recommendations for improvements in
the discharge of its functions under the Act.
During his stay from January 25
th
to February 5
th
2010, Mr. Whitton
interviewed staff and held discussions with the Education subcommittee
and with the Commission. Several of his recommendations
have been adopted.
7.7 Public Education
On Friday, March 19, 2010, the Commission held a workshop at the
Public Service Training Centre for persons coming newly into public
life. All persons in public life were invited; less than twenty (20) of
them attended the session. None of the new members of Parliament
were in attendance.
The Commission prepared and issued a Handbook dated 18
th
March
2010 containing answers to frequently asked questions. It was
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
47
apparently well received by the public and featured on a MARPIN 2K4
Television news report.
The Commission’s first Annual Report for the year ending 31
st
August
2009 is available on the Government of Dominica website:
www.dominica.gov.dm ‘Resources and Publications’.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
48
8.0 Conclusion
The Act sets out in the long title its purpose as “establishing probity,
integrity and accountability in public life and for related matters.”
The Commission remains conscious of the vital role it is mandated to
play in ensuring that persons in public life observe and maintain the
highest standard of behaviour in the conduct of the public affairs to
which they have been entrusted and which society expects.
During the year, the Commission received no complaints that met the
requirements of the Act. This may have been due, at least in part, to
a general reluctance on the part of the public to come forward with
legitimate complaints for the reasons adduced at section 6.8 of this
Report. However, comments and discussions in the media implying
violations of the Act by persons in public life grew more intense.
There has been a notable focus on public sector behavior and
performance that reflect the need to enhance ethical standards so as
to buttress and maintain confidence in public institutions. Public trust
is at stake, and it is crucial that public officials observe good
governance principles and transparency in the conduct of public
affairs. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the behavior of
public officials must be able to stand up to the closest public scrutiny,
an obligation that may not be fully discharged by simply acting within
the law.
Comments made in the media have included criticism of the
Commission for its perceived failure to act in response to allegations
of wrongdoing by persons in public life. But the Commission is
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
49
obliged to function within the authority given to it by the Act. It can
only proceed on the basis of allegations made to it by a person
against a person in public life, upon specific complaints made in
writing and in compliance with section 31 of the Act, upon information
obtained from its examination of declarations of financial affairs filed
with it and further particulars furnished relating thereto or on
evidence-based suspicion of possession of unaccounted property.
Unless changes are made to the Act made by Parliament to allow
greater volition and discretion to the Commission to investigate and
act upon allegations made or suspicions raised as is provided for, for
example, in sections 33, 34 and 37 of the Trinidad and Tobago Act,
the Commission will be unable to respond adequately to public
expressions of concern and to specific allegations made by the
media and other concerned citizens.
Notwithstanding the limitations contained in the Act, the Commission
continues to be sensitive to public concerns about allegations of
unethical and corrupt practices in the public sector and has paid
careful attention to pronouncements made in the media and
information from other sources that came to its attention. The
approach that it has taken is to carefully assess the merits of each
allegation and, if within its jurisdiction, to determine if investigation is
justifiable, bearing in mind the effects of its actions on individuals and
the institutions of government as well as the extent of its mandate.
But the Commission has had no hesitation whatsoever in using the
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
50
authority given to it under the Act for the protection of the public
interest.
The Commission’s mandate has been severely put to the test by the
force of public expectations; but the same mandate is circumscribed
by the following:
• its jurisdiction is restricted to persons in public life as
defined in the Act;
• not all wrongdoings or other actions that create public
dissatisfaction fall within the ambit of the Act;
• the Commission is not established to replace or duplicate
the functions assigned to other oversight institutions;
• enquiry can only proceed on solid and dependable
information.
Promoting and upholding integrity in the public sector is not the
responsibility exclusively of the Commission. Other oversight
authorities and institutions established by the Constitution and
ordinary laws must all play their part. They are vested with
appropriate powers and duties which have not been superseded by
the Integrity in Public Office Act. The effective enforcement of the
provisions of the Act and the maintenance of a culture of integrity and
probity in public life also require that the public play its part by
refusing to tolerate any but the highest standards of behaviour by
public officials, bearing in mind that, by definition, matters of ethics
cannot be left to the law alone.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
51
The absence of protection for “whistle-blowers” as is provided for in
some jurisdictions adds to the impediments. Unless and until
appropriate legislation is enacted to protect from disciplinary
proceedings, whistle blowers who blow the whistle on unlawful
conduct or conduct which offends the principles of economic
justification, cost effectiveness, efficiency, and ethics, this objective of
the Integrity in Public Office Act is unlikely to be realized. Whistle
blowing provisions are especially important in small communities
where the influence of the governments in the day-to-day life of
individuals is often all-pervasive.
The Commission urges Government, as a first step to creating the
conditions for it to operate more effectively, to give urgent
consideration to the recommendations already submitted for
amendments to the Act.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
52
9.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Commission acknowledges the following persons and institutions
for their contribution to its effective operation over the period under
review:
• the Commonwealth Secretariat for the contribution of the
Commonwealth Law Bulletin and other reading material to
our library, and for facilitating the invaluable assistance of
Consultant Howard Whitton;
• Mrs. Palestrina Rolle-George (who acted as Secretary for
some thirteen months in addition to her substantive
appointment as Research Assistant) and the staff of the
Commission for their assistance to the Commission, under
trying circumstances, as we sought to fulfill our mandate;
• the security staff, employees of C & S – Cleaning and
Security services;
• the Cabinet Secretariat and the Government Printer and
his staff;
• the Caribbean Law Institute Centre (per Professor Ralph
Carnegie and Professor Winston Anderson); and
• the Librarian, U.W.I Law Library, Cavehill, U.W.I.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
53
SIGNED:
……………………………………
………………………………….
JULIAN N. JOHNSON
CHAIRMAN
ALICK LAZARE
MEMBER
…………………………………….
…………………………………….
WENDELL LAWRENCE
MEMBER
PATRICIA INGLIS
MEMBER
……………………………………
……………………………………
GEORGE E. WILLIAMS
MEMBER
GERALD SMITH
MEMBER
…………………………………….
SIR BRIAN ALLEYNE
MEMBER
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
54
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
LIST OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC LIFE
APPENDIX II
NOTICES OF APOLOGY
APPENDIX III
PROFESSIONAL PROFILES OF COMMISSIONERS
APPENDIX IV
LIST OF PERSONS GAZETTED AND SUBMITTED TO
THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPENDIX V
LETTER RE AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT OF 2003
APPENDIX VI
LETTER OF JUNE 17, 2010 TO THE PRIME MINISTER –
TRAVEL ON BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
55
APPENDIX I: LIST OF PERSONS IN PUBLIC LIFE 2009
Names Offices/Positions
Aird, Gerry Chairman, DASPA
Albert, Patrickson Asst. Superintendent of Police
Alexander, Yvonne Asst. Superintendent of Police
Alleyne, Sir Brian Chairman, Education Appeals
Board
Allport, Richard Director of Agriculture
Allport, Ruth Permanent Secretary
Andrew, David Asst. Superintendent of Police
Austrie, Reginald Minister of Government
Bannis- Roberts, Loreen Minister of Government
Bannis, Jacinta Director, Drug Prevention Unit
Baptiste, Dayton Member of the House of Assembly
Bardouille, Benoit General Manager, DASPA
Bardouille, Larry Chairman, DOWASCO
Baron, Urban Parliamentary Secretary
Baron-Royer, Francine Member of the House of Assembly
(Attorney General)
Bellot, Claudia Permanent Secretary
Benjamin, Griffin Director, Primary Health Care
Bernard, Alvin Minister of Government
Blackmore, Donille President’s Secretary
Blackmore, Lucien Chief Technical Officer
Blackmore, Rayburn Minister of Government
Blanc, Dennis Asst. Superintendent of Prisons
Boyd-Knights, Alix Speaker of the House of Assembly
Browne, Abraham Member of the House of Assembly
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
56
Browne, Rosie Director, Women’s Bureau
Brumant, Heskeith Chairman, Investment Committee,
DSS
Bruno, Nicholas Permanent Secretary
Burnette-Biscombe, Anthony Chairman, Bureau of Standards
Burton, Gerald Chairman, Customs Appeals Board
& Chairman Electoral Commission
Burton, Minchinton Director of Forestry
Bynoe, Brian Vernon Director of Surveys
Cadette, Sylvester Director of Telecommunications
Carbon, Daniel Asst. Superintendent of Police
Carbon, Peter Member of the House of Assembly
Carrette, Cyril Superintendent of Police
Celaire, Rhoda Permanent Secretary
Charles, Justina Minister of Government
Charles, Norris Member of the House of Assembly
Charter, Algernon Superintendent of Prisons
Corbette, Charles Development Officer
Dailey, Julius General Manager, Public Works
Corporation
Darroux, Kelvar Parliamentary Secretary
Darroux, Kenneth Minister of Government
David, John Asst. Superintendent of Police
Defoe, Antoine Asst. Superintendent of Police
Douglas, Eisenhower Director of Trade
Douglas, Ian Minister of Government
Drigo, Johnson Parliamentary Secretary
Dublin, Damian Chairman, Public Service
Commission
Duncan, Carl Chairman, Independent
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
57
Regulatory Commission
Dupuis, Josiah Chief Fire Officer
Edwards, Irma Chief Personnel Officer
Edwards, Rosemund Financial Secretary
Esprit, Nicholls Member of the House of Assembly
Etinoffe, Bernard General Manager, DOWASCO
Eusebe, Jones Deputy Chief Fire Officer
Fabien, John Minister of Government
Fagan, Mandra Special Assistant to the Prime
Minister
Ferrol, Eleanor Secretary, Public Service
Commission
Ferrol, Steve Permanent Secretary
Fevrier, Willie Chairman, Education Trust Fund
Fontaine, John Local Government Commissioner
George, Ambrose Member of the House of Assembly
George, Margaret Chairman, DEXIA
George, Nicholas Superintendent of Police
Graneau, Ashton Minister of Government
Graneau, Kelly Minister of Government
Green, Ronald Member of the House of Assembly
Gregoire, Felix Secretary to the Cabinet
Grell, Gerald Chairman, Dominica State College
Henderson, Edward Chief Technical Officer
Henderson, Vince Minister of the House of Assembly
Hyacinth, Steve Chief Education Officer and
Chairman, Accreditation Board
Irish, Ainsworth Asst. Superintendent of Police
James, Edison Member of the House of Assembly
Jean-Jacques, Tammy Member of the House of Assembly
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
58
Jean-Jacques-Thomas, Janice Director, Social Security
Jno. Charles, Vanoulst Chairman, Police Service
Commission
Jno.Baptiste, Hobbs Deputy Commissioner of Police &
Chairman Transport Board
John, Clem Chairman, Prison Visiting Justices
Committee
John, Hector Member of the House of Assembly
John, Steve Director, Bureau of Standards
Johnson, Dr. David Chief Medical Officer
Johnson, Julian N Chairman, Integrity Commission
Johnson, Kendall Chief Technical Officer, Public
Works
Jolly, Aurelius Chairman, DBS Board of Directors
Joseph, Francis Chairman, Council of Early
Childhood Education
Joseph, Hubert (Micky) Chairman, Social Security
Jules, Deidre Clerk – House of Assembly (Ag.)
Lafond, Jennifer Permanent Secretary
Lambert, Edward Advisor, Prime Minister
Lambert, Eleanor Chairman, Food and Nutrition
Council
Lawrence, Angela Chairman, General Nursing
Council
Lawrence, Raymond Chief Cultural Officer
Leblanc, Anthony Chairman, Board of Engineering
Leblanc, Mathew Labour Commissioner
Leevy, Tara Chairman, Hospital and Health
Care Facilities Board
Lestrade, Mathias Commissioner of Police
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
59
Letang, Davis Permanent Secretary & Chairman,
Solid Waste Management Board
Letang, Rhoda Executive Director, Invest
Dominica
Magloire, Andrew Chief Fisheries Officer
Magloire-Akpa, Sonia Director, Political Affairs
Martin, Sam Member of the House of Assembly
Maynard, Charles Advisor, CARICOM and OECS
Support Unit
McIntyre, Colin Minister of Government
Monelle, Al Director, Financial Services Unit
Munroe, Ian Chairman, DBS Board of Directors
Nassief, Yvor Chairman, Invest Dominica
Nicholas, Marcel Member of the House of Assembly
Philbert, Vincent Permanent Secretary & Chairman,
Airport Development Committee
Phillip, Alex Clerk, House of Assembly
Pinard, Ian Parliamentary Secretary
Piper, Colin Director – Discover Dominica
Prevost, Joan Chairman, Public Service Board of
Appeal
Prevost, Norris Member of the House of Assembly
Rolle, Kelvin Chief Physical Planner
Royer, Bentley Member of the House of Assembly
Sanford, Claudius Member of the House of Assembly
Savarin, Charles Minister of Government
Scotland, Anthony General Manager, Solid Waste
Management
Scotland-Andrew, Mayna Chief Protocol Officer
Severin, Duke Superintendent of Police
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
60
Shillingford, Dorian Chairman, Medical Board
Shillingford, Gloria Member of the House of Assembly
Shillingford-Tonge, Juliette Chairman, Development and
Planning Corporation
Skerrit, Roosevelt Prime Minister
St. Jean, Petter Parliamentary Secretary
Stephenson, Ivor Parliamentary Secretary
Sylvester, Ambrose Chairman, AID Bank
Tavernier, Gloria Chairman, Public Works
Corporation
Thomas, Errol Chairman, Advisory Council on
Misuse of Drugs
Thomas, Esther Permanent Secretary
Thomas, Felix Chairman, Housing Loans Board
Thomas, Gregoire General Manager, DEXIA
Thomas, Kingsley General Manager, AID Bank
Timothy, Julius Minister of Government
Toulon, Ronald Member of the House of Assembly
Walter, Matthew Minister of Government
Warrington, Mariette General Manager, Dominica
Broadcasting Service
Williams, Earl Member of the House of Assembly
Williams, Merina Chief Elections Officer
Williams, Sabina Anna Member of the House of Assembly
Williams, Sonia Minister of Government
Williams, Valencia Hospital Services Coordinator
Winston, Curtis Chairman, NTRC
Xavier, Rupert Boniface Chief Environmental Health
Officer
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
61
APPENDIX II: NOTICES OF APOLOGY
I. INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003, NO. 6 OF 2003:
APOLOGY: RE FAILURE TO FILE A DECLARATION BY 31
ST
MARCH, 2009
The general public is hereby notified that in relation to the notice
published in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39 dated
September 3rd, 2009 concerning Mrs. Josephine Corbette, Senior
Administrative Officer, the Integrity Commission attests as follows:
(i) that the office of Senior Administrative Officer which was held
by Mrs. Josephine Corbette during the calendar year 2008
should not have been construed as an office of a person in
public life within the meaning of “Chief Technical Officer” in the
First Schedule to the Integrity in Public Office Act, 2003; and
(ii) that Mrs. Josephine Corbette as Senior Administrative Officer
was not required to file a declaration with the Commission
under section 16 of the Act and therefore she did not fail to file
a declaration under the Act for the period ending 31
st
December 2008, as stated in the Integrity Commission’s
Notice of September 3
rd
2009, in the Official Gazette, Vol.
CXXXII, NO. 39.
The Commission therefore apologizes through this medium to Mrs.
Josephine Corbette, Senior Administrative Officer and deeply regrets
any embarrassment and/or inconvenience caused to her by the
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
62
publication of her name in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39
dated September 03, 2009.
A report has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions
informing him that Mrs. Josephine Corbette, Senior Administrative
Officer was not required to file a declaration under the Act.
SECRETARY
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
File: IC 140/02
Date: 5
th
August, 2010
II. INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003, NO. 6
OF 2003: APOLOGY: RE NOTICE OF LATE FILING OF
DECLARATION
The general public is hereby notified that in relation to the notice
published in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39 dated
September 3rd, 2009 concerning Mrs. Jiselle Allport, Senior
Administrative Officer, the Integrity Commission attests as follows:
(i) that the office of Senior Administrative Officer which was held
by Mrs. Jiselle Allport during the calendar year 2008 should
not have been construed as an office of a person in public life
within the meaning of “Chief Technical Officer” in the First
Schedule to the Integrity in Public Office Act, 2003; and
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
63
(ii) that Mrs. Jiselle Allport, as Senior Administrative Officer was
not required to file a declaration with the Commission under
section 16 of the Act and therefore did not file a late
declaration under the Act for the period ending 31
st
December
2008, as stated in the Integrity Commission’s Notice of
September 3
rd
2009, in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, NO.
39.
The Commission therefore apologizes through this medium to Mrs.
Jiselle Allport, Senior Administrative Officer and deeply regrets any
embarrassment and/or inconvenience caused to her by the
publication of her name in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39
dated September 03, 2009.
A report has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions
informing him that, Mrs. Jiselle Allport, Senior Administrative Officer
was not required to file a declaration under the Act.
SECRETARY
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
File: IC 140/02
Date: 5
th
August, 2010
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
64
III. INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003, NO. 6 OF 2003:
APOLOGY: RE NOTICE OF FAILURE TO FILE A
DECLARATION BY 31
ST
MARCH, 2009
The general public is hereby notified that in relation to the notice
published in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39 dated
September 3rd, 2009 concerning the following persons:
Marcella Powell Senior Administrative Officer
Ann Lewis Senior Administrative Officer
Celia Joseph Senior Administrative Officer
Corinthia Burton Administrative Officer
Sybil Roberts Assistant Secretary
Jacqueline Dinnard Assistant Secretary
Louisa Jno. Baptiste Assistant Secretary
Magdalene Julien Assistant Secretary
The Integrity Commission attests that the office of Senior
Administrative Officer, Administrative Officer or Assistant Secretary
should not have been construed as an office of a person in public life
within the meaning of “Chief Technical Officer” in the First Schedule
to the Integrity in Public Office Act, 2003.
Consequently the above-mentioned persons were not required to file
declarations with the Commission under section 16 of the Act and
therefore did not fail to file declarations under the Act for the period
ending 31
st
December 2008, as stated in the Integrity Commission’s
Notice of September 3
rd
2009, in the Official Gazette, Vol. CXXXII,
No. 39.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
65
The Commission therefore apologizes to:
Marcella Powell Senior Administrative Officer
Ann Lewis Senior Administrative Officer
Celia Joseph Senior Administrative Officer
Corinthia Burton Administrative Officer
Sybil Roberts Assistant Secretary
Jacqueline Dinnard Assistant Secretary
Louisa Jno. Baptiste Assistant Secretary
Magdalene Julien Assistant Secretary
through this medium and deeply regrets any embarrassment and/or
inconvenience caused by the publication of their names in the Official
Gazette, Vol. CXXXII, No. 39 dated September 03, 2009.
A report has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions
informing him that the above listed officers were not required to file
declarations under the Act.
SECRETARY
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
File: IC 140/02
Date: 5
th
August, 2010
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
66
APPENDIX III: PROFESSIONAL PROFILES OF COMMISSION
MEMBERS
JULIAN N. JOHNSON:
Julian N. Johnson a Barrister-at-Law, Solicitor, Mediator of the
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and Notary Public, has held
acting appointments in the office of Registrar General of the
Supreme Court in Dominica and in the British Virgin Islands. He
was called to the Bar in Dominica and Tortola, British Virgin Islands
in 1988. He entered the public service in September 1964, was
appointed a Permanent Secretary in 1979 and held the offices of
Chief Personnel Officer and of Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of
the Public Service for 13 years before his retirement in August 2004.
He has also served as a part-time tutor in Political Science in the
Department of Government at the University of the West Indies on
all three campuses and in Constitutional and Administrative Law at
the School of Continuing Education, U.W.I. Dominica in 1990-1991.
His forty years experience in public service spans a spectrum of
diplomacy (attending with Prime Ministers and Ministers at regional
and international meetings and conferences in the major bilateral
and multilateral fora) public management, teaching and human
resource development, consumer protection supplies control and
disaster management, legal consultancy and research in
constitutional and administrative law, including the jurisdiction and
functions of the major oversight institutions of the Constitution. He
served as Dominica’s representative on the Executive Board of
UNESCO from April 2004 to October 2005 and as Chairman of the
National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NTRC) from
April 2004 to August 2008. In June 2010, Mr. Johnson was
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
67
appointed Honorary Consul of the Republic of Finland to the
Commonwealth of Dominica.
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics (Hons) UWI,
Jamaica, (1970), a Certificate in Multi-Lateral Diplomacy from the
Untied National Institute for Training Research (UNITAR), New York,
Geneva and Vienna, (1980), a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) U.W.I,
Barbados, (1985) and a Certificate in Legal Education from Hugh
Wooding Law School, Trinidad & Tobago(1987).
He has written several papers including “Constitution Review in St.
Vincent and the Grenadines – Some Point to Consider” (May 2003),
“Legal Imperatives for Managers” (1999) “Constitutional Democracy:
Responsible Government” (2000) and “The Doctrine of Ministerial
Responsibility and the Position and Functions of a Permanent
Secretary in Dominica” (U.W.I. Cave Hill 1985).
In November 2002 he was awarded the Sisserou Award of Honour
for meritorious public service to the Commonwealth of Dominica.
ALICK LAZARE
Alick Lazare has more than fifty years experience in public sector
management in the Caribbean. He has held senior positions in the
service of the Government of Dominica, including that of Financial
Secretary and Fiscal Advisor, and has, since retirement in 1994,
served as a consultant in public finance and management within the
Caribbean.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
68
He is a senior member of the civil service fraternity in the OECS with
considerable experience concerning how economic management
works in the region. As a consultant and advisor he has provided
support to a number of regional and international institutions
(including the Caribbean Development Bank, the Eastern Caribbean
Central Bank, The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, UNDP,
CIDA and USAID) in various aspects of public sector reform and
economic management.
A major part of his work in the region supported reforms in public
sector financial management policies and legislation, with particular
emphasis on transparency and accountability in the transacting of
public sector business. His work in reforming public finance
legislation has been widely recognized.
In November, 1981 He was awarded the Sisserou Award of Honour
for meritorious public service to the Commonwealth of Dominica.
WENDELL ALPHONSUS LAWRENCE
Wendell Alphonsus Lawrence was born at Pottersville, Dominica, in
1936. He was a 1954 Island Scholar and holds a Bachelor’s degree
in Civil Engineering (1959) from McGill University and a Diploma in
Public Administration (1964) from the University of the West Indies.
He served as a civil engineer in the Public Works Department from
1959 resigning as its Chief Technical Officer in 1975. He then went
to the Caribbean Development Bank in Barbados where he worked
from 1975 retiring as its Deputy Director, Productive Sector Division
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
69
in 1998. He returned to Dominica that same year and became very
involved in Church activity and various projects. He was made a
member of the Integrity Commission in May 2009 for a three-year
period. He was awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in
1973.
MRS. PATRICIA INGLIS
Mrs. Patricia Inglis established the first French Bank in the English
Speaking Caribbean in 1978 and served as the General Manager
from 1978 to 1998. Besides her wide experience in Banking she
has served on numerous boards and institutions in the
Commonwealth of Dominica. She also served as President of the
Dominica Association of Industry and Commerce for a period of
eight years.
She was appointed Honorary French Consul to the Commonwealth
of Dominica in 1997 and served in that category for ten years.
Mrs. Inglis currently serves as a Commissioner in the Integrity
Commission, Commonwealth of Dominica. With over thirty years of
experience at a senior level Mrs. Inglis provides services to clients in
the area of commercial banking operations, management services
and other operational requirements.
MR. GEORGE WILLIAMS
George E. Williams brings to the Integrity Commission more than fifty
(50) years of public service at the local, regional and international
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
70
levels. Following a brief period (1962 -1963) as an assistant lecturer
in a London Polytechnic he joined the economics staff of the
Commonwealth Secretariat and worked on a range of Commonwealth
economic issues. Later he became the first Executive Secretary of
the Regional Development Agency of the then West Indies
(Associated States) and Barbados which had been established in
1968 under the sponsorship of the United Kingdom, United States of
America, Canada and the World Bank to promote economic
development and co-operation in the sub-region as part of the efforts
to bring the Windwards and Leewards to self-government, following
the collapse of the West Indies Federation. He played a lead role in
the establishment of the East Caribbean Common Market, now part of
the OECS, and was its first Executive Secretary. In that capacity he
participated in much of the technical work and inter-governmental
consultations and negotiations leading to the establishment of the
various regional organisations and institutions that are now features of
the regional integration process in the Caribbean.
He joined the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) in 1979, serving first as an economic
adviser in West Africa (Sierra Leon, Liberia, and Guinea) where he
promoted economic corporation among these countries and
between them and other African countries. In 1982 he joined the
UNCTAD staff at the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, first as a
senior trade analyst and, two years later, as an Inter-regional
Adviser on trade expansion and economic corporation among
developing countries, including advice and assistance to these
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
71
countries in their negotiations with developed countries, especially in
the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
He retired from the United Nations in 1995 and a year later was
appointed Dominica’s High Commissioner in London and Non-
Resident Ambassador to a number of European countries;
Permanent Representative to UNESCO in Paris and Permanent
delegate to WTO in Geneva. He retired from public office in 2002.
GERALD SMITH
Gerald Smith was born on January 24, 1940 and is practicing
accountant. He obtained training in this field from his studies at
British technical colleges from 1971 to 1976 and from his
employment in the Dominica civil service from 1961 to 1986 when
he retired as an accountant and practiced accounting privately from
1986 to present. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of the Eastern Caribbean (D/ca Branch) from 2007. He
served as a Member on the Income Tax Appeal Commission for five
years (1995 to 200). He is married with two children.
SIR BRIAN ALLEYNE
Sir Brian Alleyne was admitted to the English Bar at Lincoln’s Inn,
London, on 10
th
November 1966, and to the Dominica Bar in
January 1967. He was elevated to the rank of Senior Counsel in
March 1991. He served as a Senator and Attorney General of
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
72
Dominica during the term of the interim government from June 1979
to January 1980, and again from 1985 to 1990.
Sir Brian practiced as a barrister at law in Dominica from 1966 until
his elevation to the bench of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
in July 1996. His practice covered areas of civil, criminal,
constitutional and human rights law, and he was also a member of
various public and private sector boards. He frequently contributed
to public discourse through newspaper articles and speeches, panel
discussions and public debates.
He was the Member of Parliament for the Mahaut constituency from
June 1980 until June 1996, when he resigned to take up his judicial
appointment. He was also very active in Church ministry,
particularly through the Marriage and Engaged Encounter
movements for many years until his departure from Dominica in July
1996. While in government he held several ministerial appointments
and represented Dominica at many international conferences,
including the General Assemblies of the United Nations and the
Organisation of American States.
He was a member of the Executive Committee of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the Caribbean,
Americas and Atlantic Region. He served as Leader of the
Opposition in the Parliament of Dominica, and was a member of the
Commonwealth Observer Group at the first multi-party elections in
1995 in Tanzania. He was the Political Leader of the Dominica
Freedom Party in 1995/1996.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
73
Sir Brian served as a High Court Judge in Grenada from 1996 to
2002, and in St. Vincent and the Grenadines until August 2003,
when he was appointed to the Court of Appeal. He served as acting
Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court from March
2005 until his retirement from the bench in April 2008, at which time
he returned home to Dominica.
While at the Bar Sir Brian was active in the local Bar Association as
well as in the Organisation of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar
Associations. He was also a director of the Caribbean Human
Rights and Legal Aid Company, and spent much of his professional
time on pro bono work. He is married with three adult children.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
74
APPENDIX IV: LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE GAZETTED AND
SENT TO THE DPP FOR FAILURE TO FILE BY 31
ST
MARCH,
2010
1. Abraham Browne
2. Alix Boyd-Knight
3. Alvin Bernard
4. Andrew Magloire
5. Anthony Leblanc
6. Antoine Defoe
7. Ashton Graneau
8. Aurelius Jolly
9. Bentley Royer
10. Brian Vernon Bynoe
11. Carl Duncan
12. Claudius Sanford
13. Dorian Shillingford
14. Duke Severin
15. Earl Williams
16. Edward Lambert
17. Eisenhower Douglas
18. Eleanor Lambert
19. Francis Joseph
20. Gerald Burton
21. Gerald Grell
22. Gloria Tavernier
23. Griffin Benjamin
24. Hector John
25. John David
26. John Fabien
27. Juliette Shillingford–Tonge
28. Kelver Darroux
29. Kelvin Rolle
30. Loreen Bannis-Roberts
31. Mandra Fagan
32. Marcel Nicholas
33. Marriette Warrington
34. Nicholas Esprit
35. Raymond Lawrence
36. Ronald Green
37. Ronald Toulon
38. Sam Martin
39. Sonia Magloire-Akpa
40. Steve Hyacinth
41. Sylvester Cadette
42. Tammy Jean-Jacques
43. Tara Leevy
44. Urban Baron
45. Vince Henderson
46. Vincent Philbert
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
75
LIST OF PERSONS GAZETTED AND SENT TO THE DPP
FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH FURTHER PARTICULARS
1. Ian Douglas
2. Charles Savarin
3. Ian Pinard
4. Gloria Shillingford
5. Patrickson Albert
6. Alvin Bernard
7. Cyril Carette
8. Johnson Drigo
9. Jones Eusebe
10. Ashton Graneau
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
76
APPENDIX V: LETTER TO THE MINISTER RE
AMENDMENTS TO THE IPO ACT, 2003
May 11, 2010
The Hon. Minister for Legal Affairs
Ministry of Tourism & legal Affairs
Kennedy Avenue
Roseau
Dear Hon. Minister,
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE
INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003, NO.6 OF 2003
Please refer to my letters of 30
th
September 2008, 10
th
October 2008,
and 4th September, 2009 in which the Integrity Commission submitted
recommendations for amendments to the Integrity in Public Office Act,
2003 (copies attached for ease of reference).
The Integrity Commission further recommends the following
amendments to the Act for your consideration:
[I] COMPLAINTS TO THE COMMISSION
It is recommended that provisions similar to sections 32 and 33 of the
St Lucia Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 should be included in the
Integrity in Public Office Act 2003
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
77
Sections 32 and 33 of the St Lucia Integrity in Public Life Act 2004
provide:-
“32.- (1) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a
person in public life-
(a) is in breach of a provision of this Act;
(b) has committed an act of corruption
may make a complaint in writing to the Commission.
(2) The complaint shall state-
(a) the particulars of the breach or act of corruption;
(b) the particulars, as far as they are known, of the person
against whom the complaint is made;
(c) the nature of the evidence that the complaint proposes to
produce in respect of the complaint; and
(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed in regulations
made by the Minister.
(3) A complaint to the Commission under this section may be
presented in person, or may be sent by registered post to the
Chairperson of the Integrity Commission.
Protection of persons making complaint
33.- (1) Pursuant to section 32, where a person makes a complaint
to the Commission.-
(a) in good faith;
(b) reasonably believing that the complaint made and any
allegations contained in it are substantially true, and in the
circumstances it is reasonable for him or her to make the
complaint,
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
78
he or she shall not be liable to any form of reprisal or any
suit whether civil or criminal.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply where it is
shown that the complaint was made contrary to paragraphs (a)
and (b) and that in the circumstances it is frivolous.”
[II] POWERS OF THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ON ITS
OWN INITIATIVE.
The Commission also recommends that the Integrity in Public Office
Act 2003 should include provisions similar to Sections 33 & 34 of the
Trinidad and Tobago Integrity in Public Life Act, 2000 No. 83 of 2000.
Sections 33 and 34 of Trinidad and Tobago’s Integrity in Public Life
Act 2000 provides:-
“33. The Commission-
(a) may on its own initiative or
(b) shall upon the complaint of any member of the public,
consider and enquire into alleged breaches of the Act or any
allegations of corrupt or dishonest conduct.
34. (1) In carrying out its function under section 33 the Commission
may-
(a) authorize an investigating officer to conduct an enquiry into
any alleged or suspected offence;
(b) require any person in writing’ to produce, within a specified
time, all books, records, accounts, reports, data, stored
electronically or otherwise, or any other documents relating to
the functions of any public or private body;
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
79
(c) require any person, within a specified time, to provide any
information or to answer any question which the Commission
considers necessary in connection with any enquiry or
investigation which the Commission is empowered to conduct
under this Act;
(d) require that any facts, matters or documents relating to the
allegations or breach, be verified or otherwise ascertained by
oral examination of the person making the complaint;
(e) cause any witness to be summoned and examined upon
oath.
(2) Where, in the course of any enquiry the Commission is
satisfied that there is a need to further expedite its
investigations, it may exercise the following powers:
(a) require any person to furnish a statement in writing-
(i) enumerating all movable or immovable property
belonging to or possessed by him in Trinidad and
Tobago or elsewhere, or held in trust for him, and
specifying the date on which each such property was
acquired and the consideration paid therefore, and
explaining whether it was acquired by way of purchase,
gift, inheritance or otherwise;
(ii) specifying any monies or other property acquired in
Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere or sent out of
Trinidad and Tobago by him or on his behalf during a
specified period;
(b) require any person to furnish, notwithstanding the
provisions of any other written law to the contrary, all
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
80
information in his possession relating to the affairs of any
suspected person being investigated and to produce or furnish
any document or true copy of any document relating to the
person under investigation and which is in the possession or
under the control of the person required to furnish the
information;
(c) require the manager of any bank, or financial institution, in
addition to furnishing information specified in paragraph (b), to
furnish any information or certified copies, of the accounts or
the statement of accounts at the bank or financial institution of
any person being investigated.
(3) A person who fails or refuses to disclose any such
information or to produce any such documents, commits and
offence and is liable to a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars and imprisonment for a term of three years.
(4) Any person who knowingly misleads the Commission, or an
investigating officer of the Commission, by giving false
information, commits an offence and liable on conviction to a
fine of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and
imprisonment for a term of five years.
(5) Where after the conduct of an investigation, the
Commission is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that an offence has been committed, it shall make a
report to the Director of Public Prosecutions who may take
such action as he thinks appropriate.”
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
81
[III] FINDINGS OF BREACH- REPORT TO PARLIAMENT, PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION AND/OR DPP
Section 46 of Grenada’s Integrity in Public Life Act 2007, appropriately
amended, should be included in the Integrity in Public Office Act 2003,
and to replace section 34(1) of the Act.
Section 46 of the Grenada Integrity in Public Life Act 2007 provides:-
“46.- (1) Where pursuant to an investigation conducted pursuant to
section 45, the Commission finds that a person in public life breaches
a provision of the Code of Conduct, the Commission shall send a
report of its findings, for appropriate action-
(a) in the case of the President of the Senate and of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Governor-
General;
(b) in the case of a Senator, to the President of the Senate;
(c) in the case of a member of the House of Representatives,
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(d) in the case of a person appointed by the Public Service
Commission, to that Commission;
(e) in the case of a person appointed by the Judicial Legal and
Services Commission to that Commission; or
(f) in the case of a person appointed to hold office in a
statutory body, to the person or authority having power to
appoint that person.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) where the
Commission has reason to believe that the evidence before it may
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
82
constitute a criminal office, it shall forward a copy of its findings to the
Director of Public Prosecutions.”
[IV] DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS
Section 5(b) of Antigua’s Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 dealing with
disqualification of members to be included in Dominica’s Integrity in
Public Office Act 2003.
Section 5(b) of Antigua’s Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 provides:-
“5.- A person shall not be appointed a member of the Commission if
he-
(b) is a person in public life other than as a member of the
Commission;”
Section 5(b) should, however, be amended to read “is a person in
public life other than as Chairman of the Commission,” as members of
the Commission in Dominica are not “persons in public life.”
[V] TRUST PROPERTY
Section 17 of the Integrity in Public Office Act 2003 to be amended to
include the following:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law where a
person in public life holds property in trust for any other person
in public life he shall so state in his declaration”.
Also consider Section 18(1) of the Antigua Integrity in Public Life Act
2004 which provides:-
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
83
“18(1) – Where a person in public life holds property in trust for
another person he shall so state in his declaration but shall not be
required to disclose the terms of the trust.”
[VI] FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION
Section 12(e) of the Antigua Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 gives the
Commission the authority to appoint where necessary auditors to
examine and verify declarations. This is not included under section 9
of the Integrity in Public Office Act 2003.
Section 12(e) of the Antigua Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 provides:-
“12(1) – The functions of the Commission shall be…
(e) to appoint where necessary Auditors to examine and verify the
accuracy of the declarations filed under the Act or complaints of
financial irregularities arising from a breach of the code of conduct
specified in the Second Schedule.”
The Integrity in Public Office Act 2003 to include Section 12(e) of the
Antigua Integrity in Public Life Act 2004 and add a further provision
that the Commission “may engage such other services as may be
necessary in the performance of its functions under the Act.”
[VII] WHISTLE BLOWER – “Whistle Blower” and sections 55(1) and
(2) of the Act.
The section 55 provisions of the Integrity in Public Office Act 2003 do
not appear to be compliant with Article III (8) of the OAS Convention
which seeks to protect complainants who make in good faith reports
of acts of corruption.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
84
ARTICLE III of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
provides: “… the States Parties agree to consider the applicability of
measures within their own institutional systems to create, maintain
and strengthen: … [8] Systems for protecting public servants and
private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including
protection of their identities , in accordance with their Constitutions
and the basic principles of their domestic legal systems.”
The Commission would wish to discuss these recommendations with
you and the Minister for Finance/or the Cabinet at the earliest
convenience.
Yours very sincerely,
JULIAN N. JOHNSON
CHAIRMAN
c.c. Minister for Finance
Permanent Secretary/Ministry of Legal Affairs
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
85
APPENDIX VI: LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER – TRAVEL ON
BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION
17
th
June, 2010
Hon. Roosevelt Skerrit
Prime Minister and Minister for Finance
Ministry of Finance, Financial Centre
Dear Sir,
INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2003: TRAVEL ON
BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION – REFUND TO THE CHAIRMAN
1. I wrote to you on 1
st
June, 2010 requesting a meeting to discuss
the above matter. There has been no reply to this letter.
Meanwhile a letter dated 7
th
June, 2010 has been received from
the Financial Secretary in reply to the Commission’s letter of 11
th
May, 2010. (Copies attached for ease of reference).
2. The Commission considered the letter of 7
th
June, 2010 at its last
meeting and has decided to write to you again to seek your
intervention in this matter.
3. At a meeting in January, 2010 the Commission decided that the
Chairman should travel overseas using his own funds to hold
consultation on urgent and sensitive business of the Commission
and that the expenses associated with that mission would be
reimbursed later from funds of the Commission.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
86
4. At a meeting in February, 2010 the Commission decided that in
determining the rate to be paid to the Chairman and members of
the Commission when travelling out of Dominica on the business
of the Commission it would be guided by the Travelling and
Subsistence Allowances (Amendment) Regulations, 1995, SRO
No. 37 of 1995 and adopt the provisions of Regulation 3(1) (b).
5. The authorities within the Ministry of Finance have refused to
allow the release of the funds required to reimburse the travel
expenses of the Chairman authorized by the Commission for the
purposes of the Integrity in Public Office Act. The refund voucher
has been held up at the Treasury.
6. In the letter of 7
th
June, 2010 the Financial Secretary concluded
as follows:
(i) It is deemed that anyone travelling on government
business is treated as a government official;
(ii) Travel on Government business is a charge on the
consolidated fund and as such it is necessary that such travel
is approved by the Prime Minister;
(iii) The Ministry of Finance is required to be guided by any
additional instructions that may be issued from time to time by
the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in regard to travel.
7. The following were cited as the authorities for the conclusions
arrived at:
(i) Travelling and Subsistence Allowances Act, Chap 23:09 of the
Laws of Dominica, (1990 Revised Ed.);
(ii) Travelling and Subsistence Allowances Regulations
S.R.O. No. 37 of 1995;
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
87
(iii) Letter issued by Minister for Finance in 1986; and
(iv) Statement contained in audit manual issued by the
Director of Audit.
8. The laws referred to by the Financial Secretary do not support
these conclusions nor authorize the additional procedures sort to
be imposed on the Commission. Under section 52(1) of the
Integrity in Public Office Act all expenses incurred by the
Commission for the purpose of the Act are a charge on the
Consolidated Fund. The estimates of expenditure, including the
travel vote, for the current financial year have been approved by
the Minister for Finance under section 52(2) of the Act and
appropriated by Parliament in accordance with the Finance
(Administration) Act, 1994 SRO, No. 4 of 1994. These laws
together with the budget approval procedures and processes, with
which the Commission has strictly complied, provide an effective
system of financial control and accountability that safeguards the
public funds voted to the Commission.
9. Members of the Commission are not public officers within the
meaning of the Constitution. [Section 5(c) of the Integrity in
Public Office Act disqualifies from membership of the Commission
any person who has, at any time during three years immediately
preceding the date of appointment, been a public officer.] The
Travelling and Subsistence Allowances Act, Chap.23:09 speaks
to public officers. The long title to this Act states: “An Act to
authorise the grant of subsistence allowances to public officers
when travelling on duty and to make provision for the payment of
their transport expenses.” Section 5(2) of the Act empowers the
Minister to make Regulations “regulating the subsistence
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
88
allowance payable to officers” whilst properly travelling and
absent from their stations on the public service. And, section 2 of
the Act defines “officer” to mean “every person permanently or
temporarily employed in the public service of the State”.
10. The Public Service Act, Chap. 23:01 also defines “Public
Officer” and establishes the “Public Service”. The public offices of
“Secretary” and “Research Assistant” to the Integrity Commission
are included in the First Schedule to the Public Service
(Schedules) (Amendment) Order 2010, SRO No. 12 of 2010 as
required by section 49(2) of the Integrity in Public Office Act.
11. The offices of Chairman and members of the Commission are not
established by the Public Service Act. The further procedures,
including the particulars required to be submitted on the standard
“Approval for Travel” form for the grant of approval, are
inconsistent with the provisions of section 13 of the Integrity in
Public Office Act, 2003.
12. Under section 27 of the Finance (Administration) Act the
appropriation made by Parliament and the warrant issued for the
services of the Integrity Commission shall lapse and cease to
have effect at the close of this financial year.
13. The accounting officer of the Integrity Commission charged with
the responsibility of the management of the funds of the
Commission has fully discharged her duties in accordance with
the Finance (Administration) Act and the Integrity in Public Office
Act to effect the refund to the Chairman.
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
89
14. The Commission therefore requests, with respect, that you give
the necessary directions and instructions to the appropriate
official under the Finance (Administration) Act and other
applicable laws so that the Chairman of the Integrity Commission
shall be reimbursed the travelling expenses and subsistence
allowances approved by the Commission for his travel on the
business of the Commission since January, 2010; and so that the
Commission will not be constrained in the performance of its
functions.
15. With the greatest respect, the Commission views this matter as
sufficiently important to require your personal attention so that the
Chairman can be reimbursed these expenses before the end of
the 2009/2010 financial year.
16. Accordingly, the Commission should be grateful, if you would let it
have your decision in this matter before the end of the financial
year.
Yours very sincerely,
JULIAN N. JOHNSON
CHAIRMAN