Corruption

On 9 December 2009, International Anti-Corruption Day was celebrated all around the world.  I apologise for forgetting to make a big deal of it on this blog.  It is not that I was not aware of the significance of the date.  It is just that on that day I was doing a job of work for the Governor General of St Kitts.  So, let us look back now, before the month slips by completely, and consider once again where we are in combating corruption in public life in Anguilla. 

Our first line of defence is the Criminal Code.  We do not have common law offences in Anguilla any longer.  All crimes have been codified.  If a crime used to exist at common law, as bribery did, if it has not been retained in the Code, it has effectively been abolished.  Either an offence is found in the Code or some other statute or it does not exist.  The word ‘bribe’ is not mentioned anywhere in the Act, or in any other Act for that matter.  Section 98 of the Criminal Code creates a new statutory offence of ‘official corruption’.  I won’t recite the whole boring, long section.  Suffice it to say that the most important of the Anguillian bribery offences is to be found at paragraph (a).  This reads

Official corruption

98. A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 3 years, if he—

(a) being employed in the public service and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment, corruptly solicits, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or retain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of the duties of his office, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done; or . . .

What we take away from this reading is that bribery is an offence only when committed by a civil servant.  The phrase ‘employed in the public service’ refers only to civil servants.  Ministers of government and board members and employees of statutory corporations such as the Health Authority of Anguilla, the electricity company ANGLEC, or the Social Security Board are not considered in law to be public servants.  The consequence is that bribery is not an offence in Anguilla when committed by a politician or a member of a statutory board.  So, for example, a member of the Board of ANGLEC could, I am not suggesting by any means that any of them does, set up bribery book and with impunity offer to fast-track electricity connections to the highest bidders.  He will be perfectly safe in the criminal law to offer to do public work in exchange for a private bribe.  He will not be committing any criminal offence whatsoever.  Neither would, for example, an employee of the Board.  This defect in our law is a shame and an outrage.  We need a proper, comprehensive offence of bribery in the law of Anguilla that applies to all persons appointed to serve the public in whatever capacity. [I was wrong. See the first comment.]

Our second and last line of defence is the Public Service Integrity Board Act.  This law enables the Governor, whenever he thinks it fit, to submit a case to the Public Service Integrity Board where he suspects that there might be a conflict of interest.  The Board only deals with conflicts of interest, not with integrity in public office as such is understood by all of us.  A conflict of interest, you might think, is a very tiny, insignificant, almost irrelevant aspect of the whole area of integrity.  The term conflict of interest is defined in the Act. 

“conflict of interest” means a direct or indirect interest of a public officer in a commercial undertaking or direct or indirect involvement of a public officer in private work if such interest or work clashes or is incompatible with his official duties, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any interest or work which—

(a) impairs or is likely to impair an officer’s efficiency;

(b) brings or is likely to bring the Government, the public service or the officer into disrepute;

(c) impinges or is likely to impinge on his official work or responsibilities;

(d) makes or is likely to make him unavailable for responsible official duties outside normal working hours; or

(e) puts him, or gives the appearance of putting him, or is likely to put him, or give the appearance of putting him, in a position where he is able to use his official position for private gain.

The first thing we observe with this Act is that it is limited to civil servants’ conflicts of interest.  No offence is committed when our Chief Minister serves, as he has for nearly two decades, as a member of our cabinet and executive council and at the same time as a Board Member and Chairman of a commercial bank in Anguilla.  How do you think an Englishman or a US citizen would react if he were to learn that PM Brown or President Obama was the chairman of the Board of Barclays Bank or Citibank at the same time as he served as the head of the executive branch of government?  And, why should we in Anguilla demand any lower standards of our heads of government?  In my humble opinion, it is nothing short of an outrage against public morality that this scandalous void in our law has been allowed to continue.  The law ought to be changed to permit investigations into allegations of conflicts of interest by all persons serving the public in any capacity.

The second thing we notice about this Act is that the Board only functions where the Governor refers a matter to it.  The Board has no power to deal with complaints made to it directly by private citizens.  The Board cannot take up an investigation into any matter of conflicts of interest or corruption in the public service that comes to its attention.  Any attempt to do so will be met by the standard, “We are dealing in-house with that matter.  Do not fret yourselves with it.”  There ought to be a law which authorises an independent body to investigate and report on any allegation of conflict of interest by any person serving the public interest.

This toothless bulldog of a law has contributed in no small way, in my opinion, to the lowering of standards in public life in Anguilla.  It serves only as a demonstration to the children of this country that you can do whatever you want to further your own personal interests while claiming to serve public ones.  I once served on this Board for four years.  At first I was filled with enthusiasm.  I very shortly became disillusioned by the ineffectiveness and pointlessness of it all.  I wonder sometimes how my successor thinks about his role.

Columnist Martin George had a point a few months ago when he demanded that the Integrity Act of Trinidad and Tobago be scrapped.  It would be a first and necessary step in our islands in really dealing with corruption.  In his column in the Trinidad Guardian Newspaper on 7 June 2009 he argued that the real point of the law should be to prevent corruption in public life, not to enforce integrity.  We have no business fudging and confusing corruption with integrity.  These laws of ours, whether in Trinidad and Tobago or in Anguilla, have proven very ineffective in reducing corruption in public life.  That should be the real objective of this type of legislation.

I agree with Martin George.  What we all need is an effective Prevention of Corruption in Public Life Act.  Neither of us has that yet.

Related Posts:

International Anti-corruption Day

Self-government

Election bribes

Is it an offence for a political party to fly in voters from the USA, Europe and the Caribbean to vote in Anguilla’s upcoming elections?  A lawyer’s answer might be that it is not an offence if such generosity is not caught by section 73 of the Elections Act.  You can read the section for yourself, and be the judge.  The relevant part of section 73 reads:

Bribery

73. (1) The following persons are guilty of bribery within the meaning of this Act

(a) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order lo induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any of those acts on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

(b) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or to procure, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce the voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any of those acts on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election; . . .

Paragraphs (a) and (b) set out the two most important bribery offences for the purpose of elections.  There are several other more specialised forms of bribery, but we need not look at them here.  The two main offences under section 73 are the paying or promising to pay any money or other valuable consideration to any person to induce any person to vote for a particular candidate, or to refrain from voting for any particular candidate.  That would clearly include a gift of cash, or a fridge, or a TV set.  Any person who is offered any cash or other gift to secure his or her vote should make a report to a senior police officer, and to his candidate.  Any person who knows of any bribe that has been given to any other person to induce them to vote a particular way, has a legal duty to report that situation to a senior police officer. 

This corrupt transaction happens routinely in every Anguillian general election.  We all wink knowingly at each other and discuss the various truck loads of building material and household equipment that is alleged to be supplied by some candidates in order to induce their constituents to vote for them on election day.  This is bribery, and it should be reported to the police and to your candidate when you have evidence of it happening.

A gift of an airfare is no different to the gift of a fridge.  We all know of cases where it has been alleged that certain politicians pay the airfare for their supporters living in other countries to come home for a holiday at election time and to vote for them.  This paying of airfare is bribery under section 73 of the Act, as it amounts to the prohibited “any other valuable consideration” given in order to induce the voter to vote a certain way. 

Where there is any evidence that airfares have been paid by a political party for persons to return to Anguilla to vote, it should be reported to a senior police officer.  Report it as well to your candidate, so that he or she can not only begin to prepare an election petition in case the election is stolen, but also for the purpose of getting on the back of the police to ensure that they do an investigation and bring any necessary prosecution.

            Paragraph (b) deals with the bribe of offering to get a job, or place of employment, for any voter in order to induce the voter to vote or to refrain from voting in a particular way.  Any campaigner who makes such a promise, or pays such a bribe on behalf of the candidate, makes the candidate liable if the court is satisfied that the candidate knew about it. 

If you have information of any of these offences being committed, report it to a senior police officer and to your candidate.  The penalty for bribery is a fine of $19,200.00 or a term of imprisonment of 6 months.  Additionally, any person convicted of bribery is disqualified from being registered as a voter or as a candidate for elections for a period of 7 years.  If a candidate is convicted for bribery after he has been elected, he loses his seat and cannot stand in elections again for 7 years.

Cozumel

Is Anguilla turning into Cozumel without the water skis?  Besides the old canard of the value of our people, Anguilla’s principal resource is its famed beaches.  We will never be a Singapore or a Switzerland.  Those countries were truly without any resources save for their strategic locations.  They had something else to capitalize on, and to make their people rich and comfortable.  They practised a strict attention not only to laws but to rules and standards.  That is something that our spoiled and semi-literate Anguillian children have not attained in this generation.  So, given the special significance of our beaches in providing employment and attracting investment, we would expect that the authorities would do their utmost to attend to their safeguarding.  Anguilla’s beaches should be sacrosanct, dedicated to the public use, and with all private structures forbidden to be built on them.  This has actually been our government’s claim for decades.  So, it is important to express outrage when the rules are broken by one of us. 

Vehicles are not permitted to be driven on the beach.  If it is not a law, then it is certainly a well-publicised rule.  This rule is being broken more and more, particularly by locals.  Sandy Ground and Rendezvous Beaches are becoming more and more like a racetrack.  Visitors have the rule that it is illegal to drive a vehicle on the beach pummeled into them by all the tourist literature.  Can we locals not follow the same simple rule?

So, you can imagine my disgust and dismay when I saw this fellow streaking by in some sport vehicle, at full speed, and making a racket of noise, on Meads Bay Beach. 

It seems clear to me that no employee of one of our major new resorts would take it on his own to joy ride on the public beach like this.  One has to assume that he had been sent out by his supervisor to test fly the vehicle.  Maybe they are going to enter it in Le Mans next?

Of course, it may have been part of a conspiracy.  Perhaps he had been instructed to keep the beach clear of tourists between Viceroy Hotel and Frangipani Hotel?  Could it be that he was actually on duty, and not sloping off as I at first suspected?  No, I decided, too far-fetched.

I guess it was just sheer Anguillian slackness, and a few old tourists on the beach did not count.  Besides, it serves them right.  Who told them to come and pollute our beach with their sad presence?

At last, even the best of things must come to an end, and one must return to boring work.

In my humble opinion, this fellow in question should be investigated by the police.  If he has committed an offence, he should be prosecuted.  If not for what he did, at least pour encourager les autres.  He should next be fired from his job.  He should be given a job letter that makes him permanently unemployable in any part of the tourism sector.  Following that, management at Viceroy Hotel should call all construction staff to a meeting, and advise them that anyone joy riding on the beach will be summarily dismissed.  It is not only illegal, it brings the establishment into disrepute.  Then, every resort in Anguilla ought to be requested by the Tourism Department to do the same thing.

Does no one around here have any standards?

Anniversaries

Three is a good age. At three, we were talking quite well. We were even making sense to other people. At three, we were well into cutting our teeth. We were potty trained. We were into board books, and we loved the pictures. At that age, we could even put on our own clothes without help.

All in all, a third birthday is a triumph of sorts.

Releases

 The battle of the press releases?  The controversy highlighted in my post of yesterday continues in the press and on the airwaves.  The Minister of Finance of Anguilla was on Radio Anguilla at 9:00 pm and again at 10:00 pm last night attempting to explain away his embarrassment.  What appears to be indisputable is that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank has lent the Government of Anguilla the princely sum of EC$12 million.  That should be just sufficient to restore the recent cuts made to public servants salaries, and to pay a double salary in time for Christmas.  The doubt lies in the circumstances in which the loan was made. 

According to the GoA press release, the government of Anguilla has never approached the government of Dominica for a loan or gift at any time.  That blanket denial would include a refutation that the GoA ever asked the GoD to extend some of its credit with the ECCB to Anguilla.  Our position is that the PM of Dominica has made an unfortunate claim.  Chief Minister Osbourne Fleming has contacted the Governor of the Central Bank, Sir Dwight Venner, and requested that he ask PM Skerrit to retract his statement.  Here is the Anguilla press release in full

Dominica has issued a press release attempting to clear up any misunderstanding over what PM Skerrit said.  It has explained that Dominica has not borrowed any funds from the ECCB for the past 5 years.  Dominica therefore has a credit with the ECCB to the tune of EC$89 million.  Anguilla, by contrast, had utilized all of its credit with the ECCB and could not borrow any more.  Dominica, therefore, last week gave Anguilla $12 million worth of Dominica’s credit.  The Dominica Minister of Finance, presumable at the request of the Anguilla Minister of Finance, had to give his consent in writing to this transaction.  So, the PM was not incorrect in stating that Dominica had helped its sister island of Anguilla.  He was merely speaking off the cuff, and may have used the wrong technical jargon.

Here is part of the Dominica press release:

Now, it will be obvious to a child that these two press releases cannot both be correct.  Either Anguilla went cap in hand to Dominica to extend some of its credit to Anguilla, or that is a complete falsehood. 

It will be interesting to see who has to apologise to whom.