BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – FOR the better part of two decades, the Labour Party-led St. Kitts-Nevis government, according to some politicians and members of the public, has made no perceivable progress in passing the Integrity in Public Life Act.
The act was tabled in 1996, shortly after the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party took the reins of power and commenced management of the affairs of St. Christopher and Nevis in 1995..
In January 2010, the Labour Party, for the fourth consecutive time, was successful at the polls, contesting all eight of the available seat in St. Kitts and winning six.
Prior to and during those elections, rumours of corruption directed towards both the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party and the main opposition party, the People’s Action Movement (PAM), fuelled misgivings with members of the public questioning the integrity of both parties, their leaders and whether or not they were fit to handle the affairs of the country.
Educator and historian Washington ‘Washie’ Archibald expressed to SKNVibes that he fails to understand where the difficulty in passing the Integrity in Public Life Act arises. He explained that that Act is of paramount importance if those elected to run the affairs of our country are to be kept inline. The absence of the Act, he opined, is a recipe for possible corruption and disaster.
“Every government finds itself in possession of an enormous amount of money, because the government has to spend money; they beg money, they borrow money, they raise money. Not only do they raise borrow and spend money but they also try to attract investors to our country. And when we hear rumours that an investor has offered to pay a politician to make it easy for him to set up his investment…they may not be true, they may be only rumours. But if there was an Integrity in Public Life law, if there was transparency in the way the people we entrust with out resources, if there was transparency, we wouldn’t have any doubt about what these people are doing.
“I don’t see why that is a difficulty. I don’t see why it is a difficulty…The people who we put there to run our affairs, we put them there and they are holding our affairs in trust. We expect them to honour that trust and we expect that there will be mechanisms which would compel them to honour the trust that we have placed in them. Nothing should be left to chance, because we are human beings; we are subject to temptation…”
Should the Act have been passed shortly after its first reading, as Archibald explained to this media house, many of the rumours of mismanagement and corruption that are being heard on the airwaves and the streets could either be proven or refuted.
“When you see a politician suddenly gets wealthy, who before entering politics had nothing and by the end of the term is as rich as the king of gold, it begs to ask the question, ‘How did he attain such wealth?’. For instance, let us look at Dr. Douglas. When he entered politics, Dr. Douglas was no where near the resources that he now owns. Nobody has proof, but if he would tell us how he came by all of these properties…For instance, when Robert Bradshaw became a young leader, before he became Premier, he bought a piece of land at Fortlands and he built a house. The house is still there. People were whispering and wondering where he got the money from to build this big house…because in those days that was a big house.
“So to pre-empt the people’s speculating, he stood up in Warner Park at the rostrum and he outlined to them that he has this house and where he got the money from to build the house. His father had lived in American for years; he didn’t know his father until he became a man. And when his father was about to die, he bequeathed a certain amount of money to him because, I think, he must have been the only son or something like that. And he told the listening audience that he was able to use the money to build a house.”
Archibald opined that by not forwarding the Integrity in Public Life Act and having it passed into law, Dr. Douglas and his team appear “suspicious”.
“People have to suspect them, especially when during their term of office you begin to hear rumours of the acquisition of all kinds of expensive and valuable assets. They should pass a bill which stipulates that those who are sitting now should be able to account for their assets. You should account for your assets, because they were acquired while in office; and there are questions of bribery and corruption which have to be addressed. Therefore, any minister should be willing to throw open his secrets. It is incumbent upon him and people should know what he had when went in, what he had during the time he is in and how he got them, so that he could prove to the country that he has come by his assets honestly.
“The acquisition of assets could be crucial to how a country is run. When we see things popping up here and there, we want to assure ourselves that the people who came in didn’t have to pay anybody to come in and the people who let them in are human beings; weak and apt to stray, vulnerable to temptation. Now, we want to be sure that people who are running our country are not selling out our country, and the only way to be sure is if we hold up to scrutiny the wealth that these people accumulate. And not only that, but we must provide penalties for politicians who come by assets corruptly. We must provide penalties because nobody is above the law.”
Archibald noted that the existing wall of secrecy in St. Kitts and Nevis is virtually impenetrable without the passage of the Integrity in Public Life Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
“So the Integrity in Public Life Act is a must! If you are going to run the affairs of a country, you must be prepared to assure the people that the money that you have has been honestly obtained…I am not sure if it will be passed, because this is the fourth term and it hasn’t been passed as yet. And what we want to know is, ‘What is the reason why it has not been passed? Who is getting money illegally? Who is taking money under the table? Who is subject to graft and corruption?’ The longer the government stays in power the more urgent these questions will become. And the Integrity in Public Life Act is what will penetrate this wall of secrecy.”
In a post-cabinet press briefing dated January 21, 2008, Cabinet explained that during that day’s meeting, the legislative agenda for that year was discussed and the Integrity in Public Life Act was among the lot.
Cabinet indicated that the Act must cover “all political party candidates, parliamentarians on both sides of the House, Ministers of Government, Senior Public Servants including Permanent Secretaries, Directors, Heads of Department, Senior Public Officers, Managers of Public Corporations, Members of Board of Directors of Public Corporations, other persons who make important high-level decisions and commit government’s resources, and their spouses”.
Cabinet also felt the Act must stipulate that they “should be required to declare all of their assets and interests. It is felt that without this comprehensive approach, surrogates and proxies could easily be used to circumvent the provisions of the law”.
The Executive arm of the government also called on the public to offer “its suggestions on this important piece of legislation that may be enacted later in the current year”.
