A new Integrity Commission has been appointed amidst some rather strange happenings and at this stage we cannot tell if these are missteps or disguise some strategic mischief.

We know that the old Integrity Commission was forced to resign en bloc because of the mistakes made in prior investigations into Keith Rowley. The courts ruled that the Commission were wrong not to have given Mr Rowley an opportunity to be heard and answer any outstanding complaints. Since then the Government, through Minister Imbert, has indicated that the legislation must be amended to allow persons against whom complaints have been laid, the opportunity to confront their accusers.

Although the Government has indicated that many people have resigned or refused appointment to State Boards because of the intrusive scope of the required filings, the proposed amendment before Parliament does not appear to do anything about this. The details of filings and the large list of people required to file remain unchanged.

The big change is that for a complaint to be heard it must be sworn in a form which will be available to the target of the complaint and false complaints may be subject to prosecution. Minister Imbert has been vigorous in defence of the falsely accused, citing a rule of natural justice that allows the accused to confront his accuser. This however is most definitely a misstep. The Commission is not a court of law and anybody prosecuted in a court will be entitled to cross-examine witnesses and see all the evidence against them.

As Subhas Panday has pointed out, this change will most certainly intimidate any potential witness from becoming a whistle-blower, as they will have no protection from vindictive reprisals. Perhaps that is the mischievous intention.

The second extraordinary event was Kamla Persad Bissessar’s threat of action to force the President to expedite appointment. This came before it had been revealed in the press that the President had written to the Leader of the Opposition for suggestions as to who might be appropriate appointees. Whether Mr Panday responded to that we don’t know.

However, following Mrs Persad Bissessar’s extraordinary assault, the President was forced to reveal that he had written to Mr Panday since April 9, 2009 listing the proposed appointees and asking whether he had any objections. We are now asked to believe that neither Mr Panday nor Mrs Persad Bissessar knew of this letter which was mislaid in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

It is hard to believe that a hand-delivered letter from the President could be inadvertently overlooked in the Leader of the Opposition’s office and that Mrs Persad Bissessar proceeded without even a phone call to the President. Is it possible that they always intended not to reply and corner the President into expediting the appointment without their blessing so that they could later deny any responsibility for the appointment? It is a case of the UNC being grotesquely incompetent or mischievously devious. You take your choice.

Due to the extreme controversy surrounding the Integrity Commission it was always going to be difficult to find people suitably qualified for the posts and willing to serve. I am sure the President has done his best despite the lack of co-operation by the UNC. Nevertheless, already there is controversy over the appointments suggesting further possible missteps. Fr Charles has been warmly acclaimed for his obvious qualifications, independence and integrity. Nevertheless, he is a Roman Catholic priest which some members of the community may not find acceptable. After all, if the cross is not acceptable to the Privy Council as a national award will a priest be acceptable as an arbiter of integrity? I would have taken comfort from some warm congratulations from the IRO and the Maha Sahba indicating their full acceptance that holy orders is not in conflict with the ability to serve in this important role. So far the silence worries me and I feel that some mischief will find fault with this admirable appointment.

Then we have the immediate resignation of Justice Zainool Hosein who having been offered the deputy chairmanship, found someone else was appointed. It was quite natural for him to feel insulted (who decided he was no longer to be deputy chairman and why was Jeffrey McFarlane elevated above him?) This starts the new Commission on the wrong foot and is another misstep.

Finally, we have the appointment of Mr Jeffrey McFarlane who is an executive director of the NIB and a person in public life subject to the legislation. The press has made much of the fact that he serves on boards where Calder Hart is the chairman. No matter how admirable and independent Mr McFarlane is, section 4 (5) of the Integrity in Public Life Act states: ’A person shall not be qualified to hold office as a member of the Commission where he is a person in public life or a person exercising a public function’. It is not at all clear that simply resigning as a person in public life would immediately free you from the jurisdiction of the legislation or allow you to immediately become a commissioner.

There appears to be much controversy over the Commission and legislation and a long way to go before public confidence is restored. Nothing we have seen to date suggests this will be resolved any time soon and I expect the Commission will be in for a torrid ride.